EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
That is looked at and then when communities are given different units, either staff or public housing, it’s always cheaper. That’s why we try to give as many units as possible. It’s cheaper to build multiplexes and units are cheaper when you build multiplexes if it’s for staff or public housing.
Just for clarity then, because it wasn’t that clear in the minister’s answer, the cost of construction goes down if a community gets both staff housing and public housing, even though they’re different contracts.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): If the Nunavut Housing Corporation builds staff or public housing, (interpretation ends) the more you build, whether it’s a staff housing unit or a public housing unit in that community, it’s cheaper. (interpretation) It’s always cheaper to build multiplex units than one unit.
I’m just having a hard time understanding here.
The more houses you build in the communities, the cheaper the construction cost is, even if they’re not combined.
If he builds one public housing unit or five public housing units, then the cost would be cheaper.
In his opening comments, it says that “Combining construction projects by community has been shown to help reduce the costs…” I’m just having a hard time understanding exactly what’s meant by that.
Staff housing or public housing units are all tendered together.
Therefore, when you tender it together and one community contractor put in a bid, whether it is staff housing or a public housing unit for that community, we find that it’s cheaper when you combine tenders for public housing or staff housing.
(interpretation) If you still don’t understand my response, Ms. Kimball can try and explain that in another way than (interpretation ends) how I’m saying it. (interpretation) It might be better if she explains it to you. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have found that the more units we’re building or the more multiplexes we’re building, with the economies of scale, the price comes down.
Contractors have to incur what’s called mobilization fees, so costs to bring the contractor and equipment into the community.
The more units you’re constructing, the less that cost is per unit.
Recently, when we did Pond Inlet, Kugaaruk, and Arviat with three five-plexes each, we actually found that the cost went down from prior tenders because we had 15 units in each community.
You have a rough estimate of how much cheaper these costs are.
Just a comment on that, maybe you should have built four five-plexes in Arviat. It would have been even cheaper.
As to how much cheaper it would be for the community, I don’t have that information in front of me, (interpretation ends) but we can get back to it. (interpretation) As for the actual cost savings when you have multiplex contracts, we don’t have that information in front of us. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
On page 5, in the second last paragraph, the program where seniors can give their house to their relatives or trade houses with someone that is in public housing, I think that is a very good program and I absolutely agree with it because some seniors with disabilities have a hard time maintaining their own houses.
I know that Simeon would probably ask this, but he is in the Chair, so can you define a senior?
Hon. George Kuksuk: I guess I’m a senior now.
It’s 60 and over.
People who are 60 years or older are considered seniors.
We are on Nunavut Housing Corporation. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Nunavut Housing Corporation. L-3. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Shooyook.
I understand what my colleague was asking about. We had been thinking about exactly the same thing.
Let me ask again: do I understand correctly with the Sivumut Abluqta Mandate, it says that when it comes to people with disabilities, the Nunavut Housing Corporation really wants to help them?
That’s great. However, I misunderstood the one where you could trade houses and move to another unit. Would it be just to move to another house, not to another community?
That’s what it means, right?
I thank my colleague for asking that good question.
What it means is an elder or an older person who owns their own house can trade it.
They would be able to trade it because they’re too old now or they’re physically disabled.
There are different reasons that can be used.
They can put in a request to move to public housing and turn their private unit over to one of their relatives to be taken care of and owned by the relative.
We’re trying to make that a possibility so they can do it.
I always wanted to understand that. I fully understand it now. I’m sure my constituents are hearing this.
Some people want to trade and they hit roadblocks, so it’s good to hear that the program is actually there.
I thank you for the good planning you did on that.
Chairman (interpretation): I think that was more of a general comment. (interpretation ends) Nunavut Housing Corporation. Branch Summary. Nunavut Housing Corporation.
My first question, in your opening comments, you talk about different things like homeownership programs.
I know this is capital, but I just wanted to ask one question about NDAP. It’s for over a 10-year period and no forgiveness for the first five years. I’m wondering if somebody could buy a house using that program and then rent it out and go down south.
Are they allowed to do that?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thanks for the question, Ms. Angnakak, but the answer is no.
You have to live in it.
That’s all I’m going to ask about that.
I want to go on to your Fire Damage Replacement Fund. Over the last few months, the issue of public housing units and fires has been in the news. You’re increasing the dollars by $782,000 and that’s for fire damage and replacement of units.
As the Nunavut Housing Corporation, how are you dealing with this? What kind of strategy have you put in place to try and deal with the increasing number of arson in many cases or it’s just fire, to deal with so many units being affected by kids starting fires?
Hon. George Kuksuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I made a mistake. (interpretation ends) Thank you for that question.
There are several ways that we are dealing with how we can prevent fires from destroying homes or units that we own or privately owned by people.
There are several ways.
One way is by engaging with our tenants. If you will recall, at the beginning of the year, we circulated or had some calendars that were distributed by the corporation to the people of Nunavut where each month had all sorts of things that had to do with fire; how to safely look after your home or how to prevent fires, and such-and-such as that.
That is one way we try and keep our tenants aware of the fire prevention or how they can improve their homes in terms of keeping it fire-safe or away from fire hazards, whether that’s for public housing or homeowners in Nunavut.
If there are any other ways that we are promoting or trying to make housing owners and tenants to be more aware of these types of things in a home, maybe Ms. Kimball can add more, but this is one that I believe was very successful when we distributed the calendars with all the stuff that we put in there; what to look for, what hazard stuff that you should look for in a home.
(interpretation) I hope I’m understandable, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you.
As well, we are working on revitalizing our website.
We recognize that our website could be a lot better and we’ve got a draft one under development to have a portal.
One other thing is it’s not just about tenant awareness, but it’s also making sure our structures are as protected against fire as we can be.
We are happy with the new building code standards that we are using for fire separation and those things are new units. When we have had fires in our multiplex units, we have seen that in the newer units, they are being contained successfully to the one unit, which is really important as we go into more dense units and more multiplexes.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your answer, minister and Lori.
When we’re talking about families whose public units have caught fire, very often I think it is some family member maybe. What kind of interaction do you have with that family after the fact?
Ms. Kimball can answer in a much broader way in terms of what kind of interaction we have with the families after such incidents.
Ms. Kimball, (interpretation) if it’s okay with you, I would like her to elaborate on that. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Our LHO staff are great on the frontlines and they work very closely with the families that are affected.
They know the members of the communities, so they will work with the family to see if there’s a place that they can stay in the short term. We work closely to make sure that they’re accommodated as best as we can.
We also look at the circumstances of the fire. In some cases, if it is an at-fault incident, it can become tenant damage, which can create barriers, but our LHO staff are great at working with the families involved.
When it’s tenant damage and it’s done by a child and they can’t live in the unit anymore, and when a new unit is built, are they first on the list to go into the new house or how does that all work?
Perhaps Ms. Kimball can just carry on and explain what the procedures are to make it clearer.
After a unit is purposely set on fire, I’m not clear on the exact procedures or steps that are taken. I would like Ms. Kimball to answer that.
We’re actually working to enhance or clarify our policies around that because there’s a big difference between negligence and intent.
There’s really a different response that should be appropriate for each of those scenarios.
Again, we do work with the family if it’s absolutely accidental, at no fault of the tenant.
I would put children in that category to a certain degree, although there can be different circumstances.
Basically, if there’s no intention, that it was truly an accident, then they would be next on the list. If not, then it’s the point rating system that would kick in.
For the next couple of questions, I want to ask about insurance because I’m sure with the fires happening and if you’re getting increasing numbers of these kinds of incidents happening, then what impact does that have on the insurance rate? The other question that I will ask right away is: who pays this insurance?
Is this blanket insurance through the government as a whole or do you have a budget line item for insurance?
With respect to insurance, the government is self-insured.
I’m not sure how I can explain insurance properly, but if she is asking about housing corporation units or government units and how the insurance is handled, there are different agencies that are responsible for government owned units or privately owned units and who insures the building.
When it comes to fire, if the building became unusable, there is a replacement fund if a fire destroys a building.
We would provide the funding from what we call the Fire Damage Replacement Fund to replace the unit if the unit caught on fire and it became unusable.
We would provide funding (interpretation ends) from that fire fund. (interpretation) It would replace (interpretation ends) that unit (interpretation) if it was destroyed by fire. I hope I’m clear. (interpretation ends) We have a replacement fund. Should that unit be totally destroyed by fire, we have funds available to replace that unit.
I’m just wondering, that replacement fund is not insurance; that is just a pot of money. What about actual insurance over a unit? Is there such a thing for public housing units?
On that question, maybe if I could get Ms. Kimball to [respond], maybe she will be able to give you a better answer on that. Mr. Chairman, if you will allow Ms. Kimball to respond to that question.
At this point, we do not insure the GN externally through an insurance coverage for our social housing. I think, in the past, it was looked at, but it was just not doable financially.
Instead, we have this fire fund which we apply through the capital budgeting process to give us the funding required to replace. At this point, the amount we’re paying per year, I would think, would be quite less than trying to insure a billion dollars worth of housing assets.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. I’m going to go on to something else.
In April of 2015, the president, such as you Lori, appeared before the Committee of the Senate of Canada. In your testimony, you stated that the cost of owning and operating a house in Nunavut ranges from $158,000 to $186,000 per year.
This is the minimum income that you would need to be able to afford homeownership in various communities.
I’m wondering if you can tell us: how did the Nunavut Housing Corporation calculate these amounts?
If you will allow Ms. Kimball to answer that question as well.
Those figures are based on figures we obtained from CMHC. They are produced annually. They are called CNITs (Core Needs Income Thresholds), but we have modified them.
When CMHC does the calculation, they only include 30 percent of labour. We actually gross that up to 100 percent labour costs.
It’s basically the cost of carrying a mortgage.
What would your monthly mortgage payments be, your insurance, all of your utilities, and your property taxes? There is a whole gamut of costs that are calculated in there. We’re using those CMHC numbers adjusted for 100 percent labour to establish the cost per community.
Thank you for your response. Would you commit to ensuring that the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s next annual report contains a breakdown of homeownership costs community by community?
Hon. George Kuksuk: I believe we can, but you can also look it up on our website on programs under homeownership. (interpretation) You can see the cost of the housing corporation units on the website, (interpretation ends) but we can provide that information at a later time.
In your overall budget for homeownership programs, it hasn’t increased since the 2009-2010 fiscal year, and your most recently tabled annual report of the 2013-14 fiscal year indicates that you had a total of 293 pending and waitlisted applications.
This was under the homeownership programs. That was as of March 31, 2014.
We are wondering: why has the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s overall budget for homeownership programs not been increased?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a very good question.
I can respond to a part of it, but I’ll have Ms. Kimball give a more detailed answer to your question.
At this time, (interpretation ends) as of March 31, 2015, (interpretation) there are 139 (interpretation ends) pending and waitlisted. (interpretation) In regard to part of your question, I’ll have Ms. Kimball respond if that’s okay with you. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Over the past year, we were able to dramatically decrease the pending and waitlist number of applications.
The balance at the end of the year is really based on the process and the steps involved to issue the payments for that.
They’re not a result of a budget limitation. The fact that we have 139 outstanding at year-end is really about the process involved.
For instance, for the Home Repair Program, we have to do a scope of work, we have to tender the work, and we have to find a contractor.
We may have also received an incomplete application. Maybe we’re missing information from the client.
Those are what are in the pending and waitlist section.
I want to go onto the Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program that was originally announced in 2010. The substantiation sheet for this project indicates that this is a five-year initiative with the goal of replacing 100 heat and oil tanks per year for a total of 500 oil tanks across Nunavut.
This program is subject to review and renewal after five years, and is expected to be renewed due to high demand.
Has the Nunavut Housing Corporation formally decided whether or not to renew this program in 2015 for an additional five years?
I cannot respond to the additional five-year plan, but if we’re going to plan for beyond five years, it would have to go through cabinet to get approval.
That is the process we take before we can move on.
Just to be clear, the Nunavut Housing Corporation would be in agreement to renewing this program, but it has to be approved through cabinet first.
Hon. George Kuksuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the question.
Will you commit to including a community-by-community breakdown of successful applications under the Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program in the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s next annual report?
Yes, absolutely, we have that available and we can distribute the copies to members.
Following the list of names, next on my list is Mr. Hickes.
I would like to actually pick up where my colleague, Ms. Angnakak, left off with the oil tank replacement program.
I understand that this was a five-year initiative and it’s ending after this fiscal year.
What is the uptake still on that program? Is it still using its allocated budget every year? Are there applications being declined because of lack of funds?
What has the uptake been since the program has been in inception?
Thanks for the question, my colleague.
Yes, there have been several declined applications due to various reasons and some applications that were approved or new and pending and so on.
To answer the question, if I got your question correctly, are you asking why were they declined or a number of declined applications or a number of approved, can you clarify your question, if I didn’t quite answer your question?
Please rephrase your question, Mr. Hickes.
Basically, with Ms. Angnakak’s question about extending this program for potentially another five years, at some point, there are only so many fuel tanks that need replacing in Nunavut.
What has the uptake been on it?
Is it still a viable program to continue using the full $500,000 a year or do you increase it? Do you decrease it and keep it in the longer term?
I’m just trying to get a sense of what the uptake has been on continuing the viability of this program.
Chairman (interpretation): I believe it’s clearer now.
Hon. George Kuksuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question.
Yes, we believe that this should continue because it’s a very good program for homeowners.
We have since approved up to 64 applicants for this program. If you will allow Ms. Kimball, if she has any other comments on that, maybe she can add more to Mr. Hickes’ question if I missed anything.
Over this past year, fiscal 2014-15, we had 64 applicants approved and we ended the year with a further 21 applications in the queue and we continue to receive applications for this program. It’s still a program under demand.
From an environmental liability standpoint, it’s something we think is important to support to make sure homeowners aren’t facing huge bills for oil tank leaks.
I hope you do continue with this program. It is a very good program.
We have all heard of stories of fuel spills and the vast amounts of money it costs to clean up such a spill when it can be mitigated by a simple $5,000 to $8,000 venture of a new fuel tank that’s going to last a lot longer.
I would like to change gears here a little bit. I would like to go back to the land issue.
In your opening comments you spoke of land availability.
My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
A cold is affecting my brain path, I think.
Zoning restrictions is listed as one of the issues. Have there been any discussions with the City of Iqaluit on zoning exemptions to allow more multiplex units to be built on what lots are available?
Thank you for the very good question.
As I stated in my opening statement, the land issue for Iqaluit is an issue for us to build anything until those issues are resolved with the city and all parties involved in solving the land issues in Iqaluit.
We want to build, but we can’t put a multiplex unit… . There’s land in some areas in the city that can be rezoned to build a multiplex unit in Iqaluit.
At this point, there are discussions going on between the Department of CG&S and the City of Iqaluit.
If I got your question correctly, no, nothing has been agreed upon in terms of selecting land for us to build on at the moment.
We just received the community profile listing with the background around the allocation methodology.
I just happened to go to my office to get something. I noticed it was just in my door as of today. When I look at it, it’s got the needs listed as a percentage and you’ve got a critical needs listing of over 40 percent.
As of right now, Iqaluit is sitting at 72 percent, almost twice the percentage basis, deeming it critical.
I do understand that there are land availability issues.
I have had discussions with your corporation and I know that there are some options being explored with the City of Iqaluit, and I appreciate that.
I also know of many instances of people maybe not being adequately housed or over-housed in some cases.
Together as a territory and as a city specifically for Iqaluit, seeing such a dire need for housing, I think some of us are going to have to make some sacrifices.
If we are in an over-housed situation, we might have to take a look at reallocating some of the staff and even public housing in some cases.
I would just like to get the minister’s position on how that is being looked at and whether that’s a reasonable path to take to help alleviate some of the stresses on housing.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thanks for the question. That’s a very good question.
Like every community in Nunavut, including Iqaluit, we want to build and we want to see that we have adequate housing to house our Nunavummiut in any community.
We support the reallocation of the existing methodology to meet the needs of Nunavummiut or Iqalummiut.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I would like Ms. Kimball to supplement my response. I know that we are looking at how we can alleviate the housing shortage and work with the communities and the City of Iqaluit because there is a dire need for housing in Iqaluit.
Ms. Kimball would like to supplement my response, unless my response is adequate for Mr. Hickes.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) As per Rule 6(1), I will now rise to report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bill 3 and the capital estimates, and would like to report progress.
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Tupik): Orders of the Day for October 23:
This House stands adjourned until Friday, October 23, at 9:00 a.m.
Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole
Friday, October 23, 2015
Pages 159 – 198
Ministers’ Statements 159
Members’ Statements 162
Oral Questions 169
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 184
First Reading of Bills 184  Second Reading of Bills 185
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 185
Report of the Committee of the Whole 197
Orders of the Day 197
Friday, October 23, 2015 1
009 – 4(3): Travel and Tourism Act Renewal (Ell-Kanayuk) 159
010 – 4(3): Government Liaison Officers to Receive ASIST Training (Taptuna) 160
011 – 4(3): Baffin Island Caribou (Mike) 160
012 – 4(3): G.R.E.A.T. Program (Ugyuk) 161
013 – 4(3): 2015 Fire Prevention Week (Mike) 161
034 – 4(3): Suicide Prevention in Nunavut (Shooyook) 162
035 – 4(3): Addressing the Need for Long-term Care for Elders (Angnakak) 163
036 – 4(3): Premier’s Visit to South Baffin (Joanasie) 164
037 – 4(3): Iqaluit’s Qanukiaq Studios (Hickes) 165
038 – 4(3): Developments in Constituency (Ugyuk) 165
039 – 4(3): Tribute to Joanasie Kooneeloosie and Family (Keyootak) 166
040 – 4(3): Congratulations on the Successful Federal Election (Mike) 167
041 – 4(3): Celebrating Naujaat (Mapsalak) 168
037 – 4(3): Status of Long-term Care Needs Assessment (Sammurtok) 169
038 – 4(3): Access to Information on Record Suspensions (Mikkungwak) 170
039 – 4(3): Status of New Cape Dorset Power Plant (Joanasie) 172
040 – 4(3): Status of Iqaluit Beer and Wine Store (Hickes) 174
041 – 4(3): Status of Scoping Study on Manitoba-Nunavut Hydroelectric Power Line (Savikataaq) 175
042 – 4(3): Iqaluit Elders Facility (Angnakak) 176
043 – 4(3): G.R.E.A.T. Program (Mikkungwak) 178