EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
A large part of NHC funding comes from the federal government, both to build houses as well as we get some operating funding.
As part of the requirements of CMHC funding, we can only support those that are below the core need income threshold.
Those values are set by CMHC based on different factors that go into the costs of owning and operating a home, things like what the cost of a mortgage payment or rent payment would be, utilities, taxes, etcetera.
As part of our program, we have to ensure that clients are not allocated a new housing unit if they’re over the core need income threshold and it’s got to align with the federal program to be able to access that funding.
Do I understand that this can be a factor in being denied? I understand the denial aspect.
I would now like further clarification on why an application would be denied for a future tenant who can make rental payments and who wants to rent a unit as an original resident.
What would be your basis for denying that application when you know they are capable of making rental payments?
Is it because their income is high enough to qualify for a private home and thusly the reason for denying the application?
Has this been the case?
I hope I was understandable here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The local residents who are capable of private homeownership will continue to receive support from NHC. Further in that vein, we have promoted the concept of homeownership through various programs designed to assist private homeowners to purchase and maintain their homes. We are in full support of residents who can own their homes for various reasons related to this issue.
Part of it surrounds the concept of units or (interpretation ends) social housing (interpretation) having been created to assist people in dire need of housing in the communities, especially in light of our shortfall of social housing.
This is part of our reasons for supporting them, as social units should be provided to people in need.
If we were to allocate a unit to a family that was able to afford a private home and they had the capacity to purchase a unit, it would take away from the purposes of (interpretation ends) social housing (interpretation) where units can be allocated to residents who don’t have that capacity like the previous example.
That’s why we support people trying to get their own homes who are able to maintain it on their own and pay for their own fuel and electricity.
That would alleviate some of the social housing challenges we face here in Nunavut.
I want a complete understanding of the matter as many people want it clarified.
If that was the case where the family income is high enough, would they get assistance from the Nunavut Housing Corporation to work towards purchasing their own home?
Would they qualify for programs and be eligible for financial support from the housing corporation if they wanted to purchase their own home?
Here I refer to a family that has been denied access to a unit by the local housing authority. Would they receive immediate assistance from the housing corporation?
I would like our president to respond to that properly as to what policies administer that and as to what support programs we have for people who want to buy or own their homes.
I would like Ms. Kimball to respond fully to that, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman.
We currently have two programs to support homeownership. One is the Interim Financing Program, where we could advance the cash to help someone construct a home.
Right now, the banking community is not facilitating that and we really want to see more new homes constructed.
There physically are not enough dwellings existing in the territory to house everybody that needs houses. That’s one of our programs.
The other program is the down-payment assistance program. It’s targeting people that are below what we call the homeownership program income eligibility threshold.
Those are higher than the core need income threshold set by CMHC. What we do is we take the number set by CMHC and we actually have a mathematical formula that expands it to the full cost of a new home. Any client between that CNIT number and the entire homeowner program income eligibility unit, those clients can seek down-payment assistance.
We do cut it off at that point. We don’t want to be helping families that are making $300,000 a year to access homeownership because they should be able to do it on their own.
We’re targeting the groups that we think can move into homeownership, but just need a little bit of help getting there.
We’re on Tabled Document 107 – 4(2), Agreement for the Management and Administration of Local Housing Organization Programs.
This first question I wish to direct relates to an event that transpired shortly after we were elected. The local housing association board sent me a letter outlining that they were going to hold a meeting with a worker from the Nunavut Housing Corporation in the Kivalliq.
I was just elected at that time, so I attended that meeting in Baker Lake on November 17, 2014. At that time, the Baker Lake Housing Association by-laws stipulated that an annual general meeting was required, but apparently no meetings were held.
The letter from the lawyer was not very pleasant to read.
With that letter, the board was directed to make a motion changing it from an (interpretation ends) association (interpretation) and they had to write up a motion changing it to the Baker Lake (interpretation ends) Housing Authority (interpretation) and this motion had to be initiated by the board and submitted to the NHC district office in Arviat. This letter was sent with the motion appended to NHC and the LHO copied me on that
December 10, 2014 correspondence sent to the district office in Arviat for the Kivalliq region.
With that development, the motion was sent to NHC and a response was that after Christmas was over, the worker would arrive in the community to discuss the changes to the LHO and how this would impact their mandate.
After this was completed, when the motion was sent to the NHC office, although the association was now an (interpretation ends) authority, (interpretation) they kept sending correspondence to the district office requesting a worker to discuss the issues as the board wanted to fully understand their new mandate and to ensure they governed themselves properly. They kept sending letters to the office requesting a worker to travel to their community to explain the situation, but no staff ever arrived to do that.
As the member representing Baker Lake, I would like to know if the Nunavut Housing Corporation will be commencing that work or if they will send an employee to the community.
The association was originally a (interpretation ends) society (interpretation) that was changed to an authority.
I am unsure as to why this status was (interpretation ends) dissolved, (interpretation) Mr. Chairman.
In speaking about Baker Lake, this status was created under the (interpretation ends) Societies Act (interpretation) where the organization was an association. The associations or housing organizations all follow the Societies Act and certain mandates dictate each type of status.
Nonetheless, with respect to the Baker Lake Housing Association, there were requirements not being followed (interpretation ends) by the association (interpretation) in that community. (interpretation ends) The registrar of the Societies Act (interpretation) had to make a decision based on non-compliance with the requirements applicable to a society under the legislation.
That is why the Nunavut Housing Corporation had to get involved in dealing with this situation, as the legislation has requirements that need to be complied with if they wish to remain a society.
I hope I am understandable in my response.
It was quite understandable.
The board was eventually provided with all the information related to the legislation and their non-compliance with these requirements.
The board of directors and the past manager that are no longer in that position worked on this, but they received the information on their status and non-compliance with the AGM requirement. They had not held an AGM for several years prior to losing their status when the correspondence arrived notifying them. They now understand why this happened.
However, I want to ask about this issue. Now that they are under the Nunavut Housing Corporation with the name, (interpretation ends) Baker Lake Housing Authority, (interpretation) and with their new status under NHC, the motion was already sent to the NHC district office.
However, the board of directors in Baker Lake is currently all appointed, but they have requested repeatedly for a staff member to travel to their community to discuss the new operational requirements under their changed status.
That was on December 10, 2014. They have yet to meet with a Nunavut Housing Corporation representative.
Would you be able to direct the housing corporation to send a representative there so that they will know what their roles and responsibilities are?
I also thank the member for the question and it was clearly understandable.
Mr. Chairman, to put it succinctly, based on what I have briefed on, the (interpretation ends) district office (interpretation) in Arviat did send a representative to Baker Lake, or they have now gone to the community, at the time when the society was changed to an authority and when the changes were being implemented. When the work was commenced to change to a (interpretation ends) housing authority (interpretation) and later on in the process, the staff went to the community.
This is based on the information I was provided.  Further, they have been using (interpretation ends) teleconferences (interpretation) to initiate the planning for the Baker Lake Housing Authority.
I hope that they will be listening to or viewing the televised proceedings.
As NHC, we will be holding a teleconference with the Baker Lake housing body, which we are currently planning to schedule soon.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you very much for that.
Additionally, organizations that have been dissolved have to get back on their feet.
With that being the situation, the board of directors is anticipating the arrival or information sharing via teleconference. Since they are watching the proceedings, I imagine they understand the situation now.
Nonetheless, in trying to stabilize the housing organization, they will need a housing manager.
Also, they have several vacancies still, although they have started to hire more workers and they now have a secretary and a manager.
With that being the case, will the entire staff receive training on their job duties? This would allow the housing association to be able to stand on its own.
Will the housing association staff in Baker Lake receive training or will NHC develop a training plan for the community?
I also thank the member for his question, which I will try to answer as briefly as possible.
The housing authorities we have here in Nunavut are our partners. With respect to training, there are different types of training specific to the job, such as (interpretation ends) administration (interpretation) and the maintenance workers who have different training requirements. The community has to submit that.
In Baker Lake’s case, for November 2015, in this month, we will hold a (interpretation ends) workshop or training (interpretation) and I am not sure of the title.
This includes (interpretation ends) LHOs and finance officers (interpretation) where training will take place during this month.
Further, when February 2016 rolls around, there will be training for the (interpretation ends) tenant relations officers (interpretation) of the associations known as TROs.
I’m not sure of the Inuktitut name, but they will receive training in February 2016.
That is what we can provide to the Baker Lake housing organization with respect to future training plans.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that response.
I guess this will be my last question here.
When you look at the Baker Lake Housing Authority, it’s now the Baker Lake Housing Authority and when it changed to the Baker Lake Housing Authority, they had an annual general public meeting with one of the Kivalliq NHC officials present, which I also attended.
In that public meeting, it was also made known to the general public that it is one of the pilot communities for a debt recovery program.
I understand it’s one of the pilot communities across Nunavut. My question here would be, I presume it’s starting to look brighter, I could say, in my opinion and I presume.
With that, will the Nunavut Housing Corporation keep the Baker Lake Housing Authority and the general public of Baker Lake [informed of] the status of how they are doing as a pilot community now?
I would like to thank the member for his clear question.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to his question about the legal status of the Baker Lake Housing Authority and if I can say it properly of the (interpretation ends) pilot project (interpretation) status, the district office in Arviat would be communicating with the community and provide an (interpretation ends) update (interpretation) on the status.
We should clarify here to people in Baker Lake that 96 percent of the rental collection efforts have been successful and that figure is commendable.
However, the district office would provide an update on the Baker Lake Housing Authority and staff from the Arviat office would provide that information.
Mr. Mikkungwak, you’ve got 1 minute and 51 seconds.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you. This last one, for sure, very brief and precise.
I have the latest, as we all have the latest documents for the management agreement and the Local Housing Organization Board Members Manual.
Are these provided to all the associations and authority organizations, yes or no?
And that’s my last one.
Hon. George Kuksuk: I’ll make that a very short answer, yes.
Seeing I have no more names, does the committee agree that we have concluded debate on Tabled Document 107 – 4(2)?
Chairman: Minister, do you have a brief closing comment?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) How brief is brief, Mr. Chairman?
(interpretation) I’m just kidding.
I would just like to say “thank you” to my colleagues as it seems obvious we are in agreement and (interpretation ends) we had some pretty good exchanges (interpretation) that allowed us to get a better understanding of the issues. We look forward to working closely together. I am quite pleased that we were able to be in front of the committee to discuss the LHO agreement template as members wanted to see examples, especially since I spoke to the matter.
I anticipate that improvements will continue as we work with the LHOs in the 2016-17 fiscal year and we expect to have everything completely finished shortly thereafter.
I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Qujannamiik.
Item 20. (interpretation ends) Report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Akoak.
Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 107 – 4(2) and would like to report that Tabled Document 107 – 4(2) is concluded.
Mr. Enook. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order.
Just a reminder that there’s a meeting of the Full Caucus at nine o’clock tomorrow morning in the Nanuq Boardroom.
Orders of the Day for February 24, 2016:
Tabled Document 73 – 4(2)
Tabled Document 116 – 4(2)
Tabled Document 140 – 4(2)
This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, February 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 20:03 Appendix – November 5, 2015
Co-Chairperson
Honourable Keith Peterson, MLA
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting the first report of the 4th Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges.
The first recommendation is that Rule 37, which provides for recognition of visitors in our Gallery, be amended to reflect our legislature’s current practices in relation to recognitions.
The foundation of the committee’s recommendation is the principle that the Rules should not unduly restrict Members’ ability to recognize and pay tribute to constituents and distinguished guests who join us during our sittings.
At the same time, the standing committee notes the importance of all Members exercising restraint with respect to multiple recognitions of the same individual and the length of recognitions.
This amendment will simplify and streamline our proceedings in relation to the introduction of bills, while maintaining an appropriate notice period.
This would be consistent with the current requirements in the Rules to print Returns to Oral Questions, Returns to Written Questions and Responses to Petitions in Hansard.
As Members will be aware, the current Guidelines were first introduced in October of 2010, just over half a decade ago.
The fifth recommendation is that the Guidelines for the Tabling of Documents be updated to introduce a requirement that electronic versions of documents that are tabled in the House by the Speaker or Ministers in their official capacities also be provided in an electronic format.
The sixth recommendation is that the Legislative Assembly’s recently-adopted Guidelines and Protocols for the News Media Respecting Filming, Photography and Other Matters be formally added to our Rules as a new Appendix.
As Members will recall, these Guidelines were introduced under the authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Management and Services Board, during the spring 2015 sitting of the House.
The seventh and final recommendation is that the next reprint of the Rules correct a number of typographical errors and terminological inconsistencies that have been identified by the standing committee.
Pursuant to Rule 91, I move that the report of the Standing Committee be received and adopted by the House, its appendix entered into the record as read and its recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be deemed to have been accepted, effective the first sitting day of the winter 2016 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Recommendations for Amendments to the
Recommendation #1: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
The standing committee recommends that Rule 37 be redrafted as follows:
37 (1) Under the item “Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery”,
Members may make statements of introduction of Visitors in the Gallery.
(2) A Visitor in the Gallery may be recognized by more than one Member on the same sitting day.
Recommendation #2: Notice Requirements for Introduction of Bills
The standing committee recommends that Rule 45(1) be redrafted as follows:
Forty-eight hours’ notice shall be given of a formal motion to be introduced under the provisions of Rule 47.
Twenty-four hours’ notice shall be given for the introduction of a bill under Rule 60.
Recommendation #3: Government Responses to Reports of Standing  and Special Committees
The standing committee recommends that Rule 91 be amended to add the following new provision:
A response provided under Rule 91(5) shall be printed in Hansard.
Recommendation #4: Guidelines for the Use of Portable Hand-Held  Electronic Devices, Laptop Computers and Other Technologies in the Legislative Assembly Chamber and Committee Rooms
The standing committee recommends that that the Guidelines for the Use of Portable Hand-Held Electronic Devices, Laptop Computers and Other Technologies in the Legislative Assembly Chamber and Committee Rooms be amended to:
Remove the prohibition against the use of hand-held electronic devices or laptop computers during meetings of the Full Caucus (FC) or the Regular Members’ Caucus (RMC).
It should be noted that if Members wish to retain the prohibition, it is incumbent on Members to draw the attention of Chairs to contraventions of the guideline during caucus meetings.
Remove the prohibition against the use of hand-held electronic devices during oral question period for the purpose of sending text messages or engaging in other forms of communication with entities inside or outside of the Chamber.
It should be noted that if Members wish to retain the prohibition, it is incumbent on Members to draw the attention of the Speaker to contraventions of the guideline by way of raising a formal point of order during proceedings of the House.
Add a new provision prohibiting departmental officials from utilizing hand-held electronic devices or laptop computers while formally appearing as witnesses before the Committee of the Whole or Standing and Special Committees of the Legislative Assembly.
It should be noted that the prohibition would not apply to the use of Legislative Assembly technology for the purpose of presentations to Full Caucus or Regular Members’ Caucus (e.g. PowerPoint presentations).
Retain the current provisions in the Guidelines respecting the use of electronic devices in the Visitors’ Gallery on the part of the general public.
Make reference to the separate Guidelines and Protocols for the News Media Respecting Filming, Photography and Other Matters.
Recommendation #5: Guidelines for the Tabling of Documents  The standing committee recommends that section #1 of the Guidelines for the Tabling of Documents be expanded to include the following new provision:
“Electronic versions of documents tabled under this section shall be provided to the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly at the time of tabling.”
Recommendation #6: Guidelines and Protocols for the News Media  Respecting Filming, Photography and Other Matters
The standing committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly’s Guidelines and Protocols for the News Media Respecting Filming, Photography and Other Matters, which were approved by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the spring 2015 sitting of the House, be formally added to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut as an appendix.
Recommendation #7: Miscellaneous Typographical Errors and  Terminological Inconsistencies in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut
The standing committee recommends that miscellaneous typographical errors and terminological inconsistencies in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, as identified by the standing committee, be corrected.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Pages 759 – 761
Opening Prayer 759
Notices of Motions 759
Motions 760
Orders of the Day 760
Saturday, November 7, 2015 759
011 – 4(3): Removal of the Member for Netsilik from the Executive Council of Nunavut – Notice (Shooyook) 759
012 – 4(3): Adjournment for the Day (Rumbolt) 760
>>House commenced at 21:07
Speaker (interpretation): Good day, my fellow Nunavummiut, members, ministers, and (interpretation ends) Premier. (interpretation) Item 1 is done.
Good evening, everybody.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to proceed directly to Item 14 in the Orders of the Day.
Speaker: The member is seeking unanimous consent to proceed to Item 14.
Speaker: Unanimous consent has been denied.
We will proceed with the orders.
Item 2. (interpretation) Ministers’ Statements. (interpretation ends) Item 3. (interpretation) Members’ Statements. (interpretation ends) Item 4.
Item 6. (interpretation) Oral Questions. (interpretation ends) Item 7.
Notices of Motions. (interpretation) Member for Quttiktuq, Mr. Shooyook.
Motion 011 – 4(3): Removal of the Member for Netsilik from the Executive Council of Nunavut – Notice (Shooyook)
I give notice that on Monday, November 9, 2015, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Baker Lake, that the Member for Netsilik be removed as a Member of the Executive Council of Nunavut.
Speaker: The member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion.
We will proceed with the orders. (interpretation) Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Rumbolt.
I think I read the wrong motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Rumbolt.
Motion 012 – 4(3): Adjournment for the Day (Rumbolt)
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for the confusion.
The motion is carried and we will proceed to Item 22. (interpretation) Orders of the Day. (interpretation ends) Item 22.
A meeting of the Full Caucus at ten o’clock on Monday morning, November 9.
Orders of the Day for November 9:
Motion 11 – 4(3)