EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Nonetheless, I am sure that Ms. Kimball can answer the question about the reason for the delay. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things we endeavour to do is to get as accurate and up-to-date information as we can. We used the August 31 waitlist information, which we acquired in early September.
It took some time to prepare the analysis of waitlist as a percentage of staff as well as to contact the LHOs that were at the top of the list and do some work to verify their waitlist, and then there’s a process to have it tabled that went through cabinet.
If I may recommend to the department, in the future, they could get these documents to us sooner so that we can use them as tools in our deliberations of the housing corporation’s budgets.
Also in your tabled document, from March of 2014, you stated where staff housing would be allocated in the coming years.
Again, in the document you tabled today, you have also changed the staff housing allocations to different communities.
Can you explain why you have changed the communities for staff housing also?
With respect to staff housing, we know that there is a shortage of Nunavut Housing Corporation housing which is provided in communities. There are situations where there needs to be public housing and staff housing then is needed. There are many factors that go into why things change.
It’s not just the housing corporation that is experiencing these things.
Other departments are also experiencing similar staff housing shortages and they vary their decisions accordingly.
I can respond with that at this time. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Eight months ago, it was a priority to have staff housing in Resolute Bay, Whale Cove, Chesterfield Inlet, and Kugluktuk. Eight months later, these priorities have changed.
What has changed in the communities so that now they have to change where staff housing is going?
The allocation of staff housing planning goes up to 2015.
In relation to public housing and staff housing, in the fiscal year 2015-16, communities will be allocated with a number of housing units, which we elaborated on yesterday.
I will try to ask my question a little differently.
The three communities that have been added to your list for staff housing are Kimmirut, Hall Beach, and Coral Harbour.
What factors in these communities led you to add staff housing in these communities before adding it to the communities that you previously stated, as in Chesterfield Inlet and Kugluktuk?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): There is no change.
There were nine units last year and this year, there will be five more added. There was no change in the number of staff housing units that will be allocated.
The tabled document from March 12 states that for 2015-16 construction, there will be staff housing in Resolute Bay, Whale Cove, Chesterfield Inlet, and Kugluktuk.
The tabled document from today for 2015-16, which is the exact same year as the tabled document before, now states that staff housing will go to Kimmirut, Hall Beach, Resolute Bay, Coral Harbour, and Whale Cove.
The number of units may not change, but the communities have changed. I would like an explanation as to why or what factors led to these changes.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The four housing units in the Kivalliq region are for 2014-15. The others are in a different fiscal year, which is the 2015-16 fiscal year.
I think the hon. member is confused about which fiscal year it is.
In the Kivalliq region, Arviat, Chesterfield Inlet, Whale Cove, and in the Kitikmeot region, Kugluktuk are for the 2014-15 fiscal year. The other five units are planned to be constructed in 2015-16. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can only read the document the way I see it and it’s listed below 2015-16.
Just for the record, the tabled document from March 12, the staff housing allocation for Resolute Bay, Whale Cove, Chesterfield Inlet, and Kugluktuk is still going ahead. The tabled document from today, for Kimmirut, Hall Beach, Resolute Bay, Coral Harbour, and Whale Cove, is additional staff housing that will be built in the following year.
If I am correct, that will be my last question.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, that is correct.
Chairman: Thank you. We are on Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Branch Summary. Nunavut Housing Corporation. Total Capital Expenditures. $30,072,000.
Following the list of names, Mr. Hickes.
To start out with, from the opening comments, the minister stated that he’s introducing new community-specific, index-able, and realistic income eligibility limits for homeownership programs from the $125,000 income eligibility.
Can the minister give us a little bit more detail on how they are going to be indexing realistic eligibility limits on a community-by-community basis?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Good question. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Mr. Kuksuk.
Previously, there were questions relating to this issue in the House and we were mindful of those questions. We were going to deal with them and we did deal with them.
Situations change in terms of the threshold for income limits.
The limits will be adjusted annually, which will be (interpretation ends) based on the costs of (interpretation) such things as (interpretation ends) land lease, taxes, foundation, materials, shipping, water and sewer services, (interpretation) and so on.
These will be changing every year. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that some of you had a number of questions regarding the income eligibility limits because I have raised this issue since I have been first elected.
I think access to the different homeownership programs in Nunavut, specifically Iqaluit, with the income threshold that was there previously, sets people up for potential failure.
What information can the minister give me that will help ease my mind that the people who will be eligible now under this program will be able to be financially stable to accommodate homeownership in Nunavut?
With respect to your question, there are different limits for each community, as this is set up for each community based on shipping costs.
As an example, a unit that costs $158,500 to construct in Arviat would cost about $186,000 in another community.
There are different reasons, but I am just using this example.
I don’t know if my answer is adequate.
Although that may be the case, there are different reasons used to set the limit.
With respect to the reasons why there are different limits on the income threshold, when we reviewed the income threshold limit, we used CMHC’s data to set these limits. The community limits were set using CMHC data to set the income threshold and that was the formula for setting a limit for each community and thusly, the difference between communities. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to clarify, using Arviat as an example, you mentioned a $158,000 income threshold eligibility limit.
The previous program eligibility had, as an example, $5,000 per dependant eligibility income increased.
Is that still the case with the current program that’s being implemented?
That has not been changed; it’s at $6,500 (interpretation ends) per dependant.
Mr. Hickes: I appreciate that response. Thank you.
There is a project here in Iqaluit that was stated yesterday that was deferred due to a land issue here in Iqaluit.
During the spring sitting, I had asked some questions regarding the lack of land availability within the city of Iqaluit and mentioned that there’s a proposed subdivision in the works from the city down the Road to Nowhere area.
There was mention that the city and NHC have had talks. I’m wondering if maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit on what they are doing to deal with the current lack of land availability here in Iqaluit.
Yes, the situation is as he stated.
With the City of Iqaluit, there were some issues in trying to move forward with land and lot availability.
However, we have now spoken with the city. For example, the zoning of the lots is what they are working on right now at the city. It is a work in progress with the city.
I’m actually going to take a step back into the homeownership programs and home renovation programs.
In the minister’s opening comments, he had mentioned that there are some funding limits and, obviously, the new criteria, but one of the things that kind of jumped out at me was the addition of contractor travel into the home renovation programs over and above the allowable limits.
Just to clarify: is the contractor travel over and above the allowable renovation limits?
That is over and above. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Now, the way I read it is only if there are no local contractors available to do the work.
What is to stop somebody from searching out contractors who can do the work cheaper than a local contractor and get that work done in anticipation of it not impacting the renovation budget, as the travel is over and above the existing limits?
If I understood my colleague’s question properly, with respect to this issue, some communities have to import contractors to either do renovations on public or private units due to the fact that they don’t have qualified contractors in their community.
The ability to import contractors into communities was something we moved forward since a lot of concerns were expressed surrounding contractors. We had to resolve these concerns after receiving concerns over several months in this House.
The budget for the renovations or for construction costs didn’t include this additional cost, so we had to add the cost of the contractor importation.
For some of the smaller communities, there are no local contractors available as opposed to the larger communities or available qualified construction workers.
Due primarily to this reason, we had to ensure that these additional costs were added to include the possibility of importing contractors to that community and to not pass along these additional costs incurred by the homeowner.
With that in mind, the additional costs can be added in cases where there are no local contractors and this applies where the communities don’t have these resources or contractors. That is the reason for the additional funds. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Maybe I’m being a bit of a worrywart, but my concern is if there is a contractor available… .
I’ll just make a hypothetical example. If I’m accessing the full $65,000 available for a home renovation project using the energy efficiency and the $50,000 limit, I can get $65,000 worth of work done.
In quite a few cases that I’m aware of, there’s typically more work being done that’s out of pocket. Let’s say I’m getting $80,000 worth of work and I’m kicking in the additional $15,000 out of my pocket, if I can find a contractor who can do that $80,000 project for $65,000 within the budget line from another community, what’s to stop me from utilizing that outside-of-that-community contractor and bringing them in because I know it’s not going to cost me any more for their travel?
From what I understand, he is asking what would be stopping you from going with an outside contactor that will be cheaper.
If there is anything to stop that person from getting an outside contractor to do the work in the community, I think Ms. Kimball can provide a better response to that. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For any home repair application, our technical staff does participate in the scope of work.
We do review the request for funding. As part of the implementation of the contractor travel, NHC will need to be part of the decision to allocate funds for travel. We wouldn’t authorize that if there was a contractor from the community.
Typically, the contractor from the community should be a lower cost since the resources are all there and they’re not incurring those additional hotel and airfare costs.
While I realize, typically, that’s the case, as you guys can speak from experience, that’s not always the case.
One of the issues again with some of the… .
I’m applauding the housing corporation for changing some of these parameters, eligibility limits, and even limit increases, for example, the heating oil tank replacement, bringing it up to $7,500 of coverage.
What has the uptake been on these programs in the last couple of years? Are all the dollars being expended? What type of impact is this limit increase going to have on the overall budget?
I noticed none of the budget lines increased to coordinate with the limit increase on funding. In my opinion, that will mean [fewer] households replacing their oil tanks, as an example. There are also other programs that are applicable.
If the minister could respond to that.
Those concerns were raised many times to us and we heard them in the corporation. They were telling us that the figure was too low to remove the old tank and replace it with a new one, that there was not enough.
I want to make sure I say this so that you can understand me in Inuktitut and I apologize if you don’t understand.
I can say that we had a lot of questions about the oil tank replacement subsidy.
Your question has something to do with how much better we are going to use our finances. Are we going to stay within budget or are we going to go into a deficit because of this? I can tell you that we’re not going to go over the budget.
Like I said, I do applaud some of these changes.
I think a number of us have made some recommendations along these lines. I recognize the corporation for adapting to some of the suggestions.
Again, I’ll just use the oil tank replacement program as an example. With the limit increase of 50 percent from the previous program limit, estimating to do 100 homes per year, now we’re looking at doing 75 per year.
With the uptake under that Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program, those 75 tanks being replaced, is that going to meet the current need?
We believe it will, but if you will allow Ms. Kimball to add to my answer further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Ms. Kimball.
Even though the limit is $7,500, in the past when the limit was $5,000, we did have a number of applicants, but the actual cost was much lower than that.
We actually were able to provide approvals for more than the 100 applicants that was our target.
As well, depending on the overall range of applicants and demand across the whole of homeownership programs, we could always re-profile money from within the whole homeownership budget.
Once we see that demand come in, we can revise our ask as we go forward for future budgets.
How often has NHC had to re-profile dollars from budget to budget under the homeownership programs?
What I’m getting at is: are some so underfunded that they’re having to continually take money from other programs to supplement the need in specific programs?
If you will allow Ms. Kimball to continue with answering those questions.
For an example, for last fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, we had 112 approved Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program applications, but we only spent $330,000.
We do have some carryover from prior years in relation to this specific program.
As you will note in our budget, we have three line items for homeowner programs. We have $116,000 for seniors and persons with disabilities preventative maintenance program, we have the Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program, and then we have a $4 million line item for all the remaining homeowner programs.
I’ll leave those budget lines alone for the moment. I’m sure some of my colleagues may have some questions on it.
In the most recently tabled annual report for 2012-13, it indicated that there were 213 pending or waitlisted applications under homeownership programs as of March 31, 2013.
One, why hasn’t the overall budget been increased? You have answered partially on that in your last response.
Two, what is the current number of pending or waitlisted applications?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ll ask Ms. Kimball to continue to respond to the question. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The pending and waitlist, just to be clear, is not generally caused by lack of funding. It’s to do with the timing of when the applications come in and the time required to process the applications.
For instance, when we get into down-payment assistance, we get the application that would remain pending until the close of the sale on that home before we advance the funds.
There are some timing aspects, as well as timing aspects with coordinating with contractors and being able to coordinate the actual work activity.
As of March 31, 2014, we have 293 pending and waitlisted applicants.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and his staff for that response.
I just wanted clarification on the land issue/challenge. I believe it was a ten-plex that was supposed to have been built in Iqaluit. Is that project going to be proceeding in the next fiscal year?
With respect to the land or lot issues for the ten-plex units the member referred to, it would be the City of Iqaluit that has to resolve the lot issues before the construction can proceed.
If the lot issue is resolved, then yes, that project would proceed. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) We are on Nunavut Housing Corporation. Branch Summary.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. Total Capital Expenditures. $30,072,000.
I would like to go to your opening comments. You talk about the Mobile Equipment Fund.
Just for the record, can you tell us what the Mobile Equipment Fund is?
The (interpretation ends) Mobile Equipment Fund (interpretation) is specifically for LHO vehicles in those communities and the purpose is for vehicles, whether they purchase vans for their workers and further, for each (interpretation ends) district (interpretation) office in the regions where they have to purchase vehicles. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I see that you have a little over $1 million for the 2015-16 year set aside for the Mobile Equipment Fund.
Can you tell us how many vehicles you’re purchasing with that amount?
I don’t have that number with me, but if we have it, we can look it up.
I don’t have the exact number off hand.
To go on again, in your opening comments, you said that the Nunavut Housing Corporation “has saved close to $10 million in the delivery of the $100 million in federal economic action plan funding.”
Can you explain to us how you were able to save the money under this initiative?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The cost-saving measures the Nunavut Housing Corporation implemented were in various areas, such as the design and construction costs of the units, as there were many other areas subject to these cost-saving measures. That was how we were able to save that amount.
With respect to the different areas that are identified in the report, I would ask that Ms. Kimball be allowed to answer the question with details. She can lay out how these measures resulted in saving this amount identified, if she can be allowed to respond to the question. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the $100 million that we received this round, we did determine we would go entirely with ship, supply, and erect tenders, which ensured that we didn’t do a separate bundling of material and labour.
That has been able to minimize change orders and any subsequent and unexpected costs because it really firms up the contract.
As well, we did some changes with some innovation to our designs.
By doing ten-plexes in communities that had higher land costs, we were able to do more with the same space of land. As well, we implemented some changes to our org. for some CMHC-funded positions that allowed us to make sure there was proper project management and oversight all the way through from the design and planning stages, through the tendering, and now monitoring as we construct.
Seeing that these kinds of initiatives are now in place, are you planning to continue to use them so that you can continue to save money?
Yes, of course. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Once again, in your opening comments, you talk about “a commitment to ensure more affordable housing options and alternatives are available to meet the varied needs of Nunavummiut, including the needs of a growing elder population.”
Can you explain to us today what your plans are to address our elder population housing needs?
In providing housing to our growing population of senior citizens, I know that it is not just in Nunavut. There is a population growth of seniors in the whole of Canada.
We are working on a (interpretation ends) blueprint for action plan on housing. (interpretation) Using that, we can move forward and consider future options to provide senior housing.
That’s what we have considered. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Ms. Angnakak.
Can the minister tell me then, in light of the action plan and he mentioned that the action plan addresses the elder population housing needs, under this $10 million for public housing units, how much of this is for elder housing?
As I stated earlier, we are trying to move forward with looking at the whole picture. We’re trying to make a (interpretation ends) blueprint for action on housing.
(interpretation) I don’t know exactly how many units we are envisioning that will be used for senior citizens, if I understood you correctly.
Perhaps I will have Ms. Kimball elaborate on the number of units. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
For 2015-16, out of the 45 units, the nine five-plexes that we’re proposing to construct, there are no plans for any of those to be seniors’ units.
The 10 units that are on pause for the City of Iqaluit, it is our intention to make that a seniors’ facility if we’re able to acquire appropriate land.
At the same time, part of our strategy going forward and part of the development of the blueprint for action is working in partnership with Family Services, the Department of Health, and a number of the different entities within the GN to look at Nunavut pilot project initiatives that we could undertake, particularly looking at some of our larger public housing homes that may be underutilized in the communities and potentially looking at a pilot project to do something as an assisted living.
There are some challenges around that. Depending on the degree of care, it does change building code requirements, which then puts it more into an institution as opposed to a residential unit. Those are things that we are working on in the background to kind of clarify those things before we move forward.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, for that.
In light of what you said, can you tell us, then, with the ten units and with your consultations with the other departments of Health and Family Services, do you have a timeline that you can provide us where we can actually see elder housing being built in Nunavut?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I understand exactly where you are coming from or maybe not. Is that question Nunavut-wide?
I would like to have the member clarify her question. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Yes, I’m talking about Nunavut. This government is responsible for Nunavut. We have a lot of communities that require elder housing.
My question is, for example, you had the ten units in Iqaluit and you have other ongoing conversations with the Department of Health and the Department of Family Services regarding elder housing and the different kinds of elder housing.
It might be assisted living or 24-hour care.
At the end of the day, what kind of timeframe are we looking at before we actually see these buildings being built in Nunavut?
We don’t have specific timelines yet, but with the (interpretation ends) blueprint for action plan on housing, (interpretation) we will be using that as a blueprint and it will involve the Department of Family Services and other departments to get involved.