EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
It may not be appropriate for me to speak on the specific issue of compliance and non-compliance or recognition or non-recognition under the Federal program.
I can tell you, I think that it may not be so much Federal exclusion that Inuit so much as non-inclusion on how they designate their Federal programs for on reserve or off reserve.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Main Estimates; we are dealing with Main Estimates for Nunavut, please keep to the topic of Main Estimates.
While we are on the topic of Nunavut Housing Corporation, please be careful when you are asking your questions.
Perhaps, it would be a good idea to ask that question during Question Period.
So, we are on Main Estimates for Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting me on the right track again.
I think that would be a good topic for discussion when we are exploring what went wrong somewhere.
Mr. Chairman, I am specifically talking about in that particular page 12-6, the erosion of Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation contribution to 2037, which is also stating here, $60 thousand, 465 dollars.
I think a lot of things will have to be explored now because we, there was never an announcement that with all of the rewriting of the Indian Act, we have to watch it very carefully that it does not have exclusion clauses after 1860 or whenever it was.
Mr. Chairman, on the page that you announced on 12-5, the cost to the Housing Association is $77 million, 516 thousand.
What is our revenue from rent collection and things like that in comparison to our cost of $77 million?
You know, if you pay for, I think that you said that there were 4 thousand units and that we pay an average of $700 a month.
I think it may be less; it is approximately $4 million.
At the same time the private sector have units for rent and yet, they have maintenance garages and workers to maintain those buildings and they have administration to look after the rent that is still big money.
Is there anything we learned from that, we could learn from that?
Mr. Chairman, we are Local Housing Authorities, Associations, Assessments are approximately $5.9 million dollars in total.
Of that, we receive approximately $5.1 million.
So, the collection rate is approximately 87%, which is a far cry.
It has improved considerably over the year and of course, it could always get better and we continue to work with them to try to improve their collection rates.
Are you finished, Mr. Arvaluk?
We will go back to page 12-6, Nunavut Housing Corporation, Main Estimates.
Mr. Chairman, I have not looked at the Housing Policy lately.
Does the Government have a buy back in their staff housing policies and has it been used much in the last two years?
Right now Mr. Chairman, we only have a buy back policy for those individuals impacted from decentralized positions but having said that, it is one of the issues that are being considered for the new staff housing rental policy that’s being prepared for consideration.
Yes, I know originally if somebody left the community, like a teacher or a nurse or government employee and they had their own house and they couldn’t sell it after I think it was 90 days, it was 90 or a 120 days, it was purchased and then it was on the market for someone else to come along and buy it.
You were saying that you’re looking at this policy.
Is that going to be in the policy that you expect to see or we expect to see soon?
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to pre-judge that might come from the appropriate standing committee or members in review or my cabinet colleagues.
What I can tell you is there will be some consideration for that as an option of development or the establishment to buy back policy to try to encourage more employees to purchase their own units.
We’ll go back to page 12-6.
Mr. Tootoo.  Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the Minister if this grants and contributions section here is the funding that goes out to the Local Housing Authorities to provide them funding to administer the social housing programs in the communities.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Yes it is Mr. Chairman, Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I’m just following up on comments I made in my opening comments.
There’s really been not a significant increase in this funding.
The Local Housing Authorities probably have increased collective agreements, increased costs; the costs have gone up over the years.
Also, the fact that the units are becoming older and more expensive to maintain; I wonder if the Minister could give us a little bit of history on how often and how much that funding has been increased and if it’s been increased for anything other than the new units that have been put on line that they get their funding for.
Mr. Chairman, it has basically been non-existent as far increases to the Local Housing Authorities.
We recognise that.
There was one year, a fuel rider or fuel assistance for the increased cost of fuel in that one year where there was a considerable jump.
One of the things that the Housing Corporation is planning on completing this year is a review of the funding formula for housing authorities, housing associations to meet, hopefully to try to address some of the needs that they have.
Mr. Chairman, I guess if there have been non-existent increases in funding, what do the Local Housing Authorities have to do to get the funding in their class go up.
Do they pretty much get less on their own to try and find places from within where they can no longer spend money on things.
If they’re supposed to renovate ten houses and because of the increased costs of operating, they can only afford to do five of them, is that the kinds of decisions that communities are being forced into making because they’re not being given adequate resources to keep up with inflationary costs?
I should clarify first Mr. Chairman, there was, as far as forced growth goes, and I think Mr. Tootoo, mentioned that as well, in respect of new units coming in line, they were provided funding for that but overall, in the existing stock or existing programming, that was an area where there hasn’t been any significant increases.
Basically Mr. Chairman, they’ve made due with what they have.
They’ve streamline their own operations.
I’m sure that there have been negative impacts in the respect of not being able to do everything that they’ve wanted but I think it’s no different as the government in other departments in that you make the best due.
You make the best with the available resources that you have and do the best job that you can.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of these financial restrictions on the Local Housing Authorities, are there any of the Local Housing Authorities that have gone into deficit problems as a result of that.
There are about 13, about half or just about half of the Local Housing Authorities that are in a deficit position.
I couldn’t say if it’s a direct result of this or other operating issues.
I guess I was going to say, half of them are and half of them aren’t in the red.
For the half that aren’t and they get the same level of funding, if they’re able to be more efficient and more streamlined, more effective, and they don’t go into a deficit and they even have a small surplus, are they allowed to take that surplus and do what they want with it.
If they’ve taken the initiative to show that they can provide the service out there and save money doing it, are the allowed the flexibility to be able to spend that money on their own in their own community or does that money get sucked back into the general revenue of the corporation.
Mr. Chairman, for the Local Housing Authorities that do accumulate an operating surplus they’re allowed to maintain 50 percent of that to deal with what they feel is their priorities.
If they’ve have to give half the money back to the corporation, there’s no real incentive for them to try and do it.
What happens to the ones that have a deficit?
Are they allowed to have a deficit?
What steps are taken by the corporation to make sure that they don’t stay in a deficit situation?
Our officials have worked with them and tried to put in place a deficit recovery plan to deal with that situation.
Just going back to the 50 percent of the surplus that they’re allowed to keep; all our housing associations are funded on the same formula, based on inventory or bedrooms or whatever the formula is, I’m just wondering what the rationale is if the association has been able to save money, why they can’t keep that money if they’re funded the same as everyone else.
What’s the rationale of having to give 50 percent of that surplus back to the corporation?
Well I guess the rationale would be that the Housing Corporation may require that there are just other housing authorities any particular time.
I would like to say, as I said earlier, we are already reviewing the funding formula because it has been inherited and we do not know exactly what components there are, if there is fairness in the allocations or not.
It is no different than the Municipal Funding Formula that funded Hamlets and how that has been reviewed through the Department of Department of Community Government and Transportation.
Mr. Chairman, hopefully in their review they are funded on one basis and they are able make any surplus, that they would be able to keep them.
Although there would be no incentive for them to try and become more efficient, like I said, if their funded I guess, they are funded the same as everyone else.
Hopefully that is something that they can take into account in their review.
And just maybe just ask them is when do they expect to have any results from that funding review?
I cannot give him the date on that right now, given that there are a lot of other policy program areas that we are working on, whether it would be sometime in the course of this current year.
Going back to 12-6, if there are no comments on 12-6?
Lately I overlooked my notes.
This $28 million, 606 thousand is a loan from Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, not a loan, this is a payment for the interest and part of the principle, I understand.
However, since 1999, we have not gotten any loan from Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, this is the annual amortization of the cost of the public housing over the years of the inventory of the public housing stock.
This is an information item on page 12-6, turning to page 12-7, Information Item Headquarters.
Any questions on 12-7?
If not, Information Item 12-8, Debt Repayment.
Those amortization charges go into that payment of principle and interest on long-term loans, Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, who has a contribution to Housing Corporation to pay for the additional charges of $28 million, 8 thousand.
I am trying to get clear on this one; Housing Corporation provides contribution to the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
So, what they do is they give you $28 million and what is it with the $28 million?
Can you tell me in my language?
Basically, it is for their reporting requirements.
They provide the $58 million dollars to us as a contribution and part of that is a repayment of the $28 million that funded is debt repayment information scheduled as our portion of the repayments on the amortization.
Mr. Arvaluk: So, what they are saying is that they give you $58 million and the, we’ll give you the $58 million if you are going to give us the $28 million of that back and for bookkeeping purposes and there is no flexibility whatsoever in that one.
Yes, the Member is correct; it meets on mortgage and obligations with them.
And again, for them, it is really their treasury board requirement for the Federal contributions that they receive for operations.
Mr. Chairman, how much more do we have to complete to erase the loan off using this method?
It’s the 2037 is the time where it would all be paid off.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ng. Mr. Arvaluk, any else?
Turn the page, 12-9.
District offices. 12-10.
Affordable housing programs.
Mr. Arvaluk: Grant and contribution is that part of the $77 million or is it different?
Grants and contributions, $63 million, 219 thousand, is that above and beyond the $77 million that you gave out to LHOs Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the contributions to the LHOs, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk: You did not answer my question. How is that comparable to the page 12-5. $77 million, 516 thousand?
Is it part or how is that related to that?
Mr. Chairman, $77 million, 516 thousand is what the housing, Nunavut Housing Corporation gets from the Government of Nunavut on page 12-10 the $63 million, 219 thousand is Housing Corporation contribution to local housing authorities kind of two different issues or items here Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is in a rush but I also have a responsibility to make the Nunavummiut to understand the budgeting system here.
It’s a little bit more complicated because it’s a corporation. $77 million even out to the Housing Associations in Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalliq, Kitikmeot, etc. is $77 million for them to operate O&M in those respective communities.
On page 12-10, Grants and contributions, $63 million, 219 thousand is for the maintenance only or is it.
How is that compared, why are they in different pages?
Maybe that’s what I should ask.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I clarified for the member that I’m not in a rush.
We have all afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to explain to the member is that on page 12-5 of the $77 million, 516 thousand is the money that the Housing Corporation receives from the Government of Nunavut.
That’s the amount we’re approving today.
On page 12-10, the Grand and contributions that the member refers to the $63 thousand, 219 thousand is part of the Housing Corporation’s contribution to the local housing authorities for their operating and maintenance and a lot of that amount is actually from CMHC funding that we receive to operate our public housing units Mr. Chairman. So, it’s part of the overall bigger total revenues that the Housing Corporation receives.
I don’t know if that clarifies it to the member or not.
Yes, that clarifies it except I couldn’t balance it. $77 million dollars from the Government of Nunavut and we give out $63 million dollars to the Local Housing Authorities.
That leaves me with $14 million dollars but the headquarters gets $7 million dollars or is it written somewhere else. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I missing $7 million and it must be placed somewhere else.
Mr. Chairman, I guess the easy way to try to explain this and I don’t know if the member, without getting into all the details if he wants, but I certainly can.
Up to $63 million, 219 thousand dollars, roughly half of that would be CMHC funding and the other half would be Government of Nunavut funding to operate the public housing programs to pay for the Operations and Maintenance to Local Housing Authorities.
That’s the simple way of explaining it without getting into the details of exactly what figure and how much.
Certainly, we’re prepared to do that if that’s what the member wants.
I’m trying to make it as simple as possible.
My question to the Minister on page 12-10 is I think and correct me if I’m wrong, do the people that are in government staff housing get subsidies when they pay rent?
And, what about the people that own their houses?
Mr. Chairman, public housing tenants get subsidised.
They pay less rent than it costs to operate.
Staff housing, employees in staff housing get subsidized because they pay less rent than what it costs to operate.
Private home owners, some of them, depending on the program, also get subsidized by the Housing Corporation.
Not, by and large, there are a percentage of private home owners that are subsidized a lot less than the staff housing or public housing tenants.
So let’s say for example, three different things that the Minister just explained, if we have the same staff, all three secretaries, if they get the same pay, but one’s in public housing, the other is in a different one and the other owns their house, with the same pay but they would get different program.
Is it different?
Maybe that’s how I would ask it.
Mr. Chairman, it would be different because we have different criteria for all those programs right now depending on which category you fit into.
That’s why, when I’ve said in the past and I’ll say it again, we’ve done the first phase and that’s the new public rent scales.
Now, we’re trying to match some of the criteria of that with our staff housing program and our home ownership program so that we make it all over more coordinated as far as the programs we’re trying to deliver.
That’s why the government moved staff housing into the Housing Corporation for that exact reason in trying to coordinate.
It’s better in the long run, the consistency of our programs and how we treat our tenants and how we treat home owners etc. all across Nunavut.
I think that, what the Minister just explained would be very much welcome by everyone, because the Housing Corporation promotes homeownership.
There is an incentive to buy your own house.
To live in your own house so you are free up Public Housing to other people, if you can.
Right now when they do that, they have to pay more to live in their own houses, because now you are paying for all your utilities, maybe there are also a little bit subsidized.
What I am trying to get at is when I am in my own house and someone else is in and I see GN staff in a rented staff house, they get subsidies, and I do not because I live in my own house.
What I am trying to get is if that is what they are working towards, when do they think that they will have that program implemented?
Mr. Chairman, I said I believe that we will probably have within the next thirty to sixty days in respect of staff housing rental policy changes from options for the Standing Committee to review to see if we are going in the right direction; of course, my Cabinet colleagues, to see if we are going in the right way.
And then we will work towards a timeline as well as far as implementing that, if we are heading in the right direction.
At the same time, on the homeownership program criteria, we are again, I would think, along the same timeline in trying to make some revisions, have some option available in the next thirty to sixty days again with some potential target dates for implementation.
I would like to go onto another question.
The matter that I was speaking on before; that if we promote people to live in their own houses.
It is always the people in my community, especially in Arctic Bay, always miss the part that they would like to go back and take some Maintenance courses so that they can know what to do about their furnaces when something happens to them, or basic carpentry.
Is the Corporation thinking about any plans about doing those very good training, or services that they used to do?
We have funding available for local housing authority’s personnel.
As well we are working with Nunavut Arctic College right now on the possibility of a Housing Maintainer/Serviceman Pilot Project in order to expand the accessibility and the availability of that type of training.
I would just like to elaborate a little bit on it.
I am talking about the people that live in their own homes, not so much on for the Maintenance crew from the LHOs.
I am just trying to make sure that the Minister understands my question that I am seeking for the people that own their houses.
Mr. Chairman, I quite frankly do not know if it is practical; if individual homeowners want to go through extensive training or to become a technician, oil burner mechanic, whatever the case may be.
They are certainly able to do that, but it is more profession related, in trying to provide these skills for an occupation. I think it is more along the lines of trying to make sure that there are services available for individuals.
I do not know if every private homeowner wants to be oil burner mechanic, quite frankly, or a carpenter or whatever the case may be, because they probably have other occupations that they are involved in that takes up families, that will take up a lot of their time.
But having said that, I think the issue is really trying to make sure that the services are available for those homeowners that require having the accessibility of individuals to maintain their homes further.
Certainly programs are available and we would support individuals that wanted to go that way, but I do not think that the majority homeowners that would want to look at that option.
I would be asking those questions to the Minister of Education if I was talking about people wanting to be oil mechanic people or professional carpenters.
I am sure that the Minister knows because I think he was in the Government of the Northwest Territories at the time that they had a program to give some kind of workshop to the homeowner so that they could at least do basic maintenance at their homes because right now, I do not think those kinds are available and they come in the smaller communities.
They are available here, you could call up somebody and they could come up and do something to your furnace and fix it, but I am not sure that it is happening in the communities.
Maybe the Minister could tell me, yes, these resources are available, maybe I am just missing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I understand the Member’s question.
That was more on the area of basic maintenance for homeowners and we do not have any plans underway for that.
It is certainly something that we can take a look at to see, you know, if there is something that can be put in place, certainly for some of the smaller communities where they might not have the network of private sector support for the area of policy maintenance.
My last one on that, if Housing Corporation is promoting for people to have their own homes, what is available for them right now in the communities, let us say in Grise Fiord?
Mr. Chairman, in the smaller communities, they may be more limited than the larger ones where they have some private market established where individuals could access that in that program that we have.
I think in the smaller communities, it is probably more ideally suited for the tenants to owner program that we recently announced and trying to get off the ground this coming year.
For example, I own a home in Grise Fiord and my furnace breaks down, who do I call?
Is that service available?
Maybe I have missed the Member’s question because again, I think she has gone from housing maintenance to homeownership and not talk about the housing maintenance.
Maybe I misunderstood it, but in respect of the homeowners requiring maintenance that their most recent question in the smaller communities, it is not available privately, but certainly the Housing Authority personnel would be able to assist in an emergency situation.
I think in our smaller communities, it is almost traditional I think that people help each other out in a situation.
I know in the past, where I mean some of the larger communities, if somebody is stuck for something and there is a private business that can provide it.
You can certainly go to the Housing Association for some assistance on a short-term basis.
It’s my English.
I’m talking about if you own a house and your house need some maintenance, that’s what I’m trying to get at here.
If that happens, how are the charges made.
Are they charged, are there costs for a home owner to call upon the maintenance person from Housing Association.
Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would hope that there was some private sector business or individual that could do the work having on a regular maintenance issue.
If there wasn’t, it’s not the responsibility of housing association staff to work on private homes.
Their first priority is to deal with the public housing units.
As you know, many communities require attention.
But, having said that, if there was an emergency situation, they would be more than likely able to assist the private home owner.
I don’t have the answer and I’m not prepared right now to tell housing associations to enter into the private sector to provide regular maintenance for private home owners.
I would think that if there’s a market there, that no matter what the size of the community, that somebody would be able to do that on the private sector side.