EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Second Reading of Bills. Item 19. Consideration of Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.
We’ll take a short break and come back at 3:30.
>>House recessed at 14:58 and Committee resumed at 15:38
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 16. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Kattuk.
Mr. Kattuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We wish to continue with Bill 16 and the review of the Capital Estimates for Nunavut Housing Corporation, followed by the Departments of Justice and Health and Social Services.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kattuk. Are we in agreement we continue with the Capital Estimates for Nunavut Housing Corporation? Does this committee agree?
Minister Akesuk, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s officials in.
To my immediate right is the President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Peter Scott, and to my immediate left is Eric Whitworth, Chief Financial Officer. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Mr. Scott and Mr. Whitworth, welcome to this committee meeting.
Yesterday we were on L-6. Grants and Contributions. Headquarters Region.
Total Headquarters Region. $9,075,000.
L-6, L-7, and L-8. Qikiqtaaluk Region.
Mr. Arvaluk: L-8, Qikiqtaaluk Region. (interpretation) I’m a little concerned about the plans.
I’m not sure when they started preparing these plans but I’m concerned about the houses that did not make it up to the Baffin region and some houses going to the wrong destination.
As I stated yesterday, the housing association asked to do a review and they were paid for by the housing association, not the Housing Corporation.
The co-op had been contracted to build the houses and since they were asked to do a review, they did but the first sea can that had arrived and when opened, there were houses that were supposed to go to Igloolik and Clyde River.
They were in the same sea can.
At that time, and even in the Kivalliq region, everywhere else other than Kitikmeot, there were materials going to the wrong destination, even though they were prepared for as early as spring.
You were preparing the $6 million budget, and you stated there was a $6 million in cost savings.
Why is it that the materials were not able to make it without consideration that now you have to fly them in?
Members, I would like to inform the members, for the last two days, similar questions have been asked by other members and the minister has provided answers.
So I will leave it up to the minister if he wishes to respond to your questions.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. In regard to putting the materials to the sea cans, our staff was down I think it was in July when they were starting to do the crating and marshalling and so on.
Only when they arrived in the communities did we realize that some of the materials had gone to the wrong destination.
Some Member: I believe I have a Point of Order.
Chairman: What’s the Point of Order?
Mr. Curley: My Point of Order is that my question is that there were various marshalling issues and so on, which, I believe, that you alluded to questions that were posted to the minister really had to do with my constituents, and therefore, did not reflect on other Members of the House. Certainly, they have their privilege to ask questions that relate to their constituencies because the particular units have been built in a number of communities.
Such type of question that you referred to the minister really had to do with my concern with the mode of transportation that my region faces, as well as some products that are in Montreal instead of Kivalliq.
So I believe I did not at all satisfy all the other members who may or may have not asked questions. So that’s just my point, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday there were a lot of similar questions from different members. They were very similar and the minister has been answering very similar answers to the questions.
The minister chose to answer your questions, so it’s okay.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I appreciate those comments, however, I still fail to understand how, when you were in front of the standing committee, you did not inform, when you found out in July, that you might have to alter your capital budget accordingly.
Because you did not identify how you would be transferring materials from Pond Inlet, not from Montreal but from Pond Inlet, to Igloolik and Clyde River, as an example, have you budgeted for that as part of your capital plan?
We contracted the marshallist to perform certain services and it was our expectation that they would comply with the terms and conditions.
And, that’s what we expected.
Once the sea cans were arriving to the communities, we had noticed that there were some materials that were not supposed to go to certain communities and ended up in the wrong communities. So that happened.
So since then, we’ve been trying to figure out what went where and why it ended up there. And, like I said yesterday in my response to Mr. Curley’s questions, once we complete the research that we have to do to figure out what went where, we’ll let the MLAs know of what the problems were from there on.
I believe that the issue is quite wide about what was distributed.
The problem is you have not made alternate adjustments in your capital, or at least request to this House to finance the housing association to do your inventory in Pond Inlet, for example, and the respective communities, for your research work to find out how much of a mess there is. How much is it going to cost?
There are no adjustments in these capital estimates. Are you going to have the housing association pay for your inventory work, at their own cost, when, in fact, the housing association was not involved in the marshalling or the mistakes in it?
I will respond to that again.
We have been working on this issue and the costs are not included in the capital estimates.
The marshalling portion is going to use the $200 million to correct the mistakes.
Since there’s cost savings involved, we will use those dollars to rectify the problem.
We are going to be working with the local housing organizations and if they had used any funds from their own budget, then they can inform our staff so that the necessary adjustments will be made.
I can’t respond any other way because I’ve already made my statements. Thank you.
Could the minister tell me about the $200 million that will be used to correct the problem?
Has there been an agreement with the housing associations and to the contracting people, for example, Pond Inlet Co-ops?
They are going to be just using their own budget and their local companies.
Has there been an agreement between the Housing Corporation, the contracting services, and the housing associations to refund the money that they had used? Thank you.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. We will be reimbursing those companies and contracted organizations.
As I was trying to say, I don’t think we’re going to be going anywhere with this issue. It’s a problem.
Now, the local housing associations are working extremely hard.
They are building two five-plexes in our community and they are utilizing their own staff who should be maintaining the other houses.
They have to find out which materials belong where or what belongs to them.
So we have all those problems that we’re encountering.
I am going to keep an eye on whether these local housing associations are using their own budgets.
Not just by phone, but have you written any letters indicating that you will be reimbursing them if they had utilized their own funds?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Minister Akesuk.
We had talked to them but not by correspondence.
If you give us direction, we will write them a letter and we will want to find out exactly how much they had spent in substantiations to reimburse them. We will look into all that. Once we get the documentation and the substantiation, then we would reimburse them.
Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $5,149,000. Does this committee agree?
Kivalliq Region. L-8 and L-9. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) The minister cannot respond because he already responded.
I just want to tell the minister that the remarks that I made a couple of days ago (interpretation ends) that when we’re talking about projections, it is not a cost saving. I just want to be very clear.
The minister said he’s going to be saving $6 million but projections are not cost savings.
They have not been verified.
I want to caution the minister that it’s dangerous to present figures when, I said couple of days ago, it could be misleading, unless verified or audited by financial consultants or something to that effect.
So I would caution the minister when using these figures because - I concur with the minister that he’s saving costs to date - he hasn’t built one house yet nor completed any.
The materials are sitting all over the place, and therefore, he has not paid anybody.
So even if you’re saving some money on this financial quarter, when the last quarter eventually begins, that will be the figure that we will want to see; the last financial quarter.
I have a question on the Kivalliq program. You budgeted $550,000 for the homeowner program.
Could the minister or his officials explain to the committee exactly how many actual projected numbers of units are planned for this kind of figure and on what type of housing initiatives?
At this time, according to our written material, we’ve been dealing with the applications. There are 83 applicants from the Kivalliq region in this line item.
There are 83 applications but they do not state the amount, but this is for homeowner programs.
I appreciate the minister providing some figures. I understand there are 83 applications, or 83 actual individuals approved for financing homes. My question was to try and get the minister to maybe break down some of the projected homeowner programs because the item on L-9 indicates homeowner programs.
So I’m trying to translate it down to the detail exactly which ones are retrofit kind of homes for private homeowners and which are actually new housing units.
So if the minister has information on that, could he explain that to us, please?
We have 83 people on the waiting list, and once this budget goes through, we’ll have an idea of how many applicants will be receiving money to improve their homes.
I believe Mr. Scott could elaborate a bit more on that.
The projection of how many applicants we will get under which program is based on historical information; it’s based on last year’s delivery for the various programs.
There were 114 applications approved in the Kivalliq, including 12 applications for down payment assistance. There were also an additional seven pending approvals at various stages of processing.
There were three Material Assistance Programs that were delivered; 26 Home Repair Programs; 15 under Emergency Repair; three under Senior Citizens Home Repair Program; and there were 65 elders or disabled that were assisted under the Preventative Maintenance Program.
So based on that historical delivery, that’s what the allocation to the Kivalliq is based on.
I appreciate that answer. Can the minister or his officials also explain whether or not they have a cap, like an absolute number that says you will release and build the number of units?
It may increase from time to time, but do you have a certain minimum number that you need, for instance, for new homeowners for that effect, because we don’t have the actual breakdown of amounts. It may not be documented but the one that I have only says $550,000 for various homeowners. I suppose that includes all the other types of money.
So can the minister help us out in whether or not they use that funding to actually get to build new homes for that amount, and if so, how many is normally budgeted for that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. For the Material Assistance Program, we use the funding from the Housing Trust. Perhaps, this $500,000 is for improvement and retrofit.
Again, I think the minister normally has provided us with some information on a number of homeowners that were actually provided with some assistance at the end of the fiscal year.
Will the minister do that? Can that information also contain the number of applications that were not approved based on each particular program?
I can provide a copy of the information that we have for 2007-08.
I think it’s important to have that because we normally get the information from our constituents mainly from those who have not been approved. Normally, those individuals that have had a successful past don’t bother giving any compliments to the Housing Corporation.
So therefore, those individuals that have been denied, we’re getting quite a lot of them. Sometimes we try to pass that information back to the officials in the region, but would it be possible, minister, you indicated, that you provide that information to us?
My last one is: do you have a sort of budgeted figure for each community, or do you just base it on a number of applications coming in? Does this funding allocated for these various homeowner programs based on first come first serve kind of basis?
If one particular community did not submit any applications, they don’t get any? Only ones that are close to the Housing Corporation officials probably normally have easier access to the information.
How does it work, minister?
The funding we make available to the applicants is handled by the district offices.
They deal with the people who have priority to be assisted, and sometimes they’re done on a first come first serve basis for maintenance and retrofit.
I have another question that has to do with the application process.
Once an individual has submitted an application, whether it is for Homeowner Repair Program, not an emergency one but trying to get assistance for materials and so on to upgrade their homes, if the person’s application does not qualify or is not accepted, what criteria is normally used to reject that application?
I’ll get Mr. Scott to answer that question.
Generally, it depends upon the program that the applicant has applied for. In most cases, rejections are issued as a result of the applicant being over the income threshold limits that are applicable to that community.
That seems to be the most dominant reason.
Other reasons include if they have rental arrears with the housing association, they could be rejected for a program particularly if they want to get into the Material Assistance Program or Downpayment Assistance. If they have poor credit and are unable to get a bank loan or mortgage, then they could be rejected for that reason as well.
When the homeowner applicant says to a particular individual like me, for instance, he said that, “I’ve been denied a number of applications every year for the last three years. I applied for particular assistance but I have never succeeded.” What should we do in this regard?
I’ll get Mr. Scott to answer that.
Ms. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My recommendation, I guess if a client, or an applicant, or a constituent comes to an MLA and tells them that, my recommendation is to suggest that they go back to the district office and talk to the program people to get advice or counselling on what they’re required to do in order to become qualified.
Several of the complaints that I’ve personally looked into where people have complained that they’re rejected year, after year, after year, I found out that they applied five years ago and because nobody has shown up on the door with an acceptance letter, they’re assuming that they are rejected every year.
They have to go in and keep re-applying or updating their applications and working with the district staff on an annual basis.
Mr. Curley: Yes. I appreciate that.
I think if all else that doesn’t work in that regard, then it may be fine. We’ve seen many applicants that have not been approved. Is there an appeal process for these individuals who have been denied funding applications, in particular those that have not been consistently approved every year that they apply for various types of programs?
Those people who have been denied can then appeal to the President of the Housing Corporation.
Mr. Curley: I understand that they could re-submit their application. Is there an appeal process with the application process for any individual that have not seen anything? Are there various appeal processes?
What criteria are used to consider a person’s application is being appealed and when that appeal is being made, to whom it is addressed?
Because I would assume it’s not going to the same program officer.
The applicants who are refused can usually go through the applications and try to work with the appropriate people who work at the district office, and they review the application.
We do not have an appeals board, so they are given to the president.
I understand that there is no actual policy or an appeal program when they have been rejected by the program officer, or those individuals that are not qualified when they feel they have.
Why is there no actual appeal process for funding?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: I’ll get Mr. Scott to respond to that question.
Up to now, there hasn’t been a real requirement to have a formal appeal process for applicants. Any applicant who feels that they are not being assessed properly, under the terms and conditions and the requirements and guidelines of the program, can send me an e-mail, write me a letter, or give me a phone call.
To date, that appeal process seems to have worked but we could look at a more formal approach if that is the wish of the House. We could develop that and see if that works any better.
The funding applications available before the program actually kicks in, and as well, before the construction season begins, is really normally quite short.
I noticed that it only takes about two weeks as of April 1 to see all of the funding and applicants considered and rejected.
So in that regard, the individuals, once they have provided the approval process to evaluate applications, once they do that, then they’re off on their holidays. So there’s normally not very much of a window to carry out the appeal in that regard.
Having said that, I think it’s really quite important that the minister should consider - I use the word “consider” now because we want to give you an opportunity to consult with your officials - and really, you, as a minister, should evaluate that program to see whether or not the applicants feel that they had qualified and get rejected every year should have an opportunity to have a clear understanding that their applications are not just thrown in the garbage can.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. Yes, we will definitely look into this because it would be more appropriate.
We do want to produce a better group mandate to benefit all Nunavummiut.
Thanks again, Mr. Curley.
Kivalliq Region. Total Kivalliq Region.
Just on the Homeownership Program that my colleague was asking me about, I’m just wondering, the minister or Mr. Scott had indicated that the majority of people that don’t get approved is because of the income threshold.
I’m just wondering, has the corporation done anything recently to look at it?
Has that changed recently and have any improvements been made to that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don’t include the isolation settlement allowances and the northern allowance when determining the income threshold of applicants applying for retrofit funding. So we do not include those as income.
I just want to ask the minister if the family size or number of dependents is one of the considerations taken into account, too, in determining that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. Yes, we also take into consideration the dependents and the family size.
On some of the different programs that are there for capital programs for the Housing Corporation, I think we all know that all across Nunavut, it’s a unique environment and there are always unique circumstances as a result of that.
So I’m just wondering if, through any of their programs, they take special consideration for specific or unique situations that may arise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. I will let Mr. Scott respond to that.
During the course of the day, we run across unique situations on a daily basis.
We take those into consideration on our day-to-day operations.
If the member has any specific examples he wanted to share with us, we could discuss them, or we could discuss them outside of the House.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can certainly empathize with Mr. Scott.
I’m sure that they do run into many different and unique circumstances in their day-to-day operations.
The one thing, if you want an example, I can give one. Here in Iqaluit, for example, on the Road to Nowhere subdivision, where houses have been built up there, and there is a tremendous snow problem up there that is causing damage to people’s houses, and in some cases, expensive work needs to be done to alleviate or get rid of that problem.
I’m just wondering if that could be a particular unique circumstance that they would look at addressing.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. We will definitely have to check into this further. (interpretation ends) I do believe it would have to be on a case-by-case basis for coming up with ideas.
If we could assist in any way, again, it’s limited to where we can assist on those types of problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo, we’re on page L-8. Kivalliq Region.
I know where we’re at.
I didn’t get enough candy yesterday to be on a sugar buzz to forget.
Yes, maybe later on tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the minister would agree then, that if, not only in the specific example that I mentioned, but there may be other areas like if individuals had concerns on the capital program, the Housing Corporation’s not fitting unique circumstances, that they would be receptive to sitting down with those individuals, wherever they may be from, and looking at different options. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. Yes, we would be able to sit down with them to try to assist them if they have special circumstances or conditions and go through what programs we might have available.
Kivalliq Region. Total Kivalliq Region. $2,811,000.
Just one quick question, just one question, hopefully.
When you started the housing ownership program, the cost, I think you were spending something like $140,000 per unit.
I believe that price has gone up quite considerably. In fact, actually, it’s up to around $300,000 now. Has this housing assistance program reflected that when it comes to income threshold, for example by percentage similar to that, otherwise, it would not really reflect what’s affordable today than yesterday?
When the Material Assistance Program was developed, we estimated that the cost of the material package delivered to the communities, as an average, would be about $150,000 per client.
The cost of those materials in the first year we delivered came in at a lot higher than we expected at around $180,000 to $185,000.
The expectations on the client side of it is that they must be able to afford the cost of building the unit, the labour costs, and be able to engage a contractor to pay for the labour. Those labour costs that some of our clients have incurred has been anywhere around $90,000 to $130,000 per unit.
Sometimes, within the same community, one client gets a quote for $90,000 and another client gets a quote for $130,000.
So it varies.
As far as changing and altering the income limits, as a result of that, because of the inconsistencies within the labour costs of clients, we haven’t done that yet. However, the minister did indicate, we have removed the northern allowance type of income from their total allowable income or assessable income for eligibility.
So that will make a difference in allowing more clients to be eligible for the program.
So the answer is no, it hasn’t been done, except for those couple of bottom adjustments.