EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman, but to conclude, I want to reiterate my thankfulness to the volunteers who form the search and rescue teams in the communities. They provide a very valuable service when people need to be rescued.
I hope that everyone has a very pleasant day today.
I would also like to thank the minister for appearing in front of the committee here and the staff.
Could the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the minister and staff out.
We will be dealing with the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Minister Curley, to make his opening remarks.
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2011-2012 – Consideration in Committee – Nunavut Housing Corporation
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you, committee members.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to meet with the members of the Committee of the Whole today to discuss the 2011-12 main estimates and business plan for the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Fiscal 2011-12 GN funding to the Nunavut Housing Corporation will increase by $11,117,000 from the main estimates of 2010-11.
The increase includes:
$4,608,000 for O&M costs for new public housing that will be available during the year;
$2,837,000 for increases in staff housing lease rates;
$1,316,000 for administration related to a decrease in own source revenues and an increase in travel budget to better support LHOs; and
$1,949,000 to offset the net reduction in CMHC funding.
I look forward to lobbying the federal government to continue to discuss our growing housing issues in Nunavut and the requirements for extra funding for both capital and operating costs.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2011-12 main estimates and business plan.
Chairman: Sergeant-at-Arms, could you please escort the minister and witnesses in.
For the record, Minister Curley, could you please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is the President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Mr. Alain Barriault, and also to my left is the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s Chief Financial Officer, Lori Kimball.
Go ahead, Mr. Rumbolt.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
The standing committee notes that the corporation’s proposed 2011-12 main estimates of $143,759,000 has increased by approximately 7.7 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2010-11 main estimates.
The number of positions in the corporation is 88. This is a decrease of 15.0 PYs from its 2010-11 business plan.
The standing committee notes that the majority of this decrease in the number of PYs is due to term positions that are expiring on March 31, 2011.
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2008-09 annual report was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until October 28, 2010. The standing committee looks forward to the minister tabling the 2009-2010 annual report in the Legislative Assembly and emphasizes how important it is that the corporation table its annual reports in a timely manner.
On October 21 of last year, the minister tabled the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s contracting report for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
This item was subsequently referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration.
The standing committee looks forward to the minister tabling the corporation’s 2009-2010 contracting report in the Legislative Assembly and reviewing it in detail.
During the Second Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, the government began the practice of providing annual Ministerial Letters of Expectation to Crown corporations and agencies in order to establish priorities and provide direction with respect to their operations and initiatives. The current government, through the Public Agencies Council, has indicated that it is undertaking a Memorandum of Understanding-based approach to this process.
The standing committee strongly encourages the timely tabling in the Legislative Assembly of priority-setting items that are directed to Crown corporations and agencies, including the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, on January 20 of this year, the Nunavut Housing Corporation issued a news release concerning the changes being made to strengthen the financial management and the governance structure of the corporation. In addition, the minister announced in the House last week that the Nunavut Housing Corporation is continuing to enhance financial controls.
The standing committee was pleased to see that the Nunavut Housing Corporation is taking steps to improve its financial management and governance structure and looks forward to the minister providing ongoing updates on these important issues.
On October 29, 2010, the minister announced the results of Nunavut Housing Needs Survey.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-14 business plan indicates that the Housing Working Group and the Subcommittee on Homelessness will use the data collected from the Nunavut needs survey to assist in completing the GN Comprehensive Housing Strategy and the GN Homelessness Strategy, which are both expected for the fall of 2011. The standing committee fully supports the minister in his efforts to use these results to secure additional federal funding to reduce Nunavut’s housing shortage.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-14 business plan indicates that the “Review of the Staff Housing Policy will be part of the winter 2011 NHC Housing Forum. The results will be incorporated into the GN Comprehensive Long Term Housing Strategy.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to keep the Legislative Assembly fully informed on this issue and looks forward to the minister tabling both a new Staff Housing Policy and the GN’s Comprehensive Long-Term Housing Strategy in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
Members note the importance of ensuring that staff housing is available in our smaller communities, especially for health and education positions.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-14 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its priorities, which was to “work with senior department officials to begin a process for reviewing and updating the Rent Scale.” It indicates that “A review of the current Public Rent Scale as part of NHC’s Tamapta Action Plan objectives is currently underway.
The NHC expects to have the review completed by Spring 2011.”
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members requested an update on this issue. Members were informed that the review is on schedule and an update should be provided during the spring sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, on October 26, 2009, all Members of the Legislative Assembly agreed that comprehensive reviews of the public housing rent scale and the Income Support Program are required.
Members noted that these reviews should focus on identifying and removing disincentives to entering the workforce. Given the importance of this issue, the standing committee looks forward to the minister keeping the Legislative Assembly fully updated on the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s work in this area.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2008-09 annual report indicated that a total of $7,682,000 was spent on homeownership programs in 2008-09.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-14 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its previous priorities, which was to “Implement revised homeownership policies and guidelines and monitor success.”
It indicates that “The NHC has undertaken a review and revision of the current Homeownership Programs Guidelines and Procedures and a new Homeownership Programs Manual will be issued to programs staff prior to March 31st, 2011.”
Members recognize that the corporation’s budget for homeownership programs is primarily funded through its annual capital estimates.
Members encourage the minister to table the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s new Homeownership Programs Manual in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-14 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its 2010-11 priorities, which was to “Conduct needs assessment research on homelessness in Nunavut.”
It indicates that “The Nunavut Housing Needs Survey data has been collected by the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics and the report by Statistics Canada was delivered for October 2010.
Detailed community and regional tables will be released in early 2011.” The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2011-12 main estimates have allocated $400,000 to continue its work through the Homelessness Secretariat.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening comments on the 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Considering that we only have one page here, you could ask any questions on that.
I just need clarification on two different paragraphs, paragraph 5, I believe, and I think paragraph 4. “The need for additional public and affordable housing continues to place a burden on the finances of the government and we must seek alternative sources of funding.”
I believe that’s one window of opportunity.
The other one seems to be the second to that paragraph. “I look forward to lobbying the federal government to continue to discuss our growing housing issues in Nunavut and the requirements for extra funding for both capital and operating costs.”
So that seems to be the second window of opportunity.
Are we talking about one and the same opportunity for the fourth and fifth paragraphs?
I need clarification on that.
Perhaps they have an expense. What are you talking about here?
I think that’s a good question.
We need public input in terms of trying to find alternative housing modes in Nunavut.
We’re used to pretty well one mode, really: federal dollars coming in, channelled through the Nunavut Housing Corporation, the GN, and then we build public housing through that.
Not only the impact that the current public housing in Canada is under national review. Right now, it’s a standstill not only for Nunavut.
There’s a question being asked by the provincial ministers even whether or not the federal government is going to put more money.
They pretty much have expired and we only have the current fiscal year with the federal government, and then they don’t have future commitments.
So the provinces and as well as all of the territorial governments, including Yukon and NWT, are all lobbying, along with the provinces, urging the federal government to extend and create new funding.
But even within our own House in Nunavut here, we still have to find effective means of providing housing. So that’s what we mean, that we must seek alternative sources of funding.
I’ll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ningark: About the second paragraph immediately after “we must seek alternative sources of funding,” the other one talks about the requirements for extra funding for both capital and operating costs. Could you expand a bit on that one?
Hon. Tagak Curley: What that is indicating to the committee member is that the lobby, including myself and my colleagues in the cabinet, simply needs to urge the federal government to commit new funding. I think it will be very important for members to pay attention on March 22 whether or not the federal government will announce any new funding.
If they don’t for the northern territories, we are going to be scrapped for funds.
There won’t be any new housing being built unless we can free up our own GN housing money somehow, but we will never match the federal government’s sources of funding that they have made since the creation of Nunavut.
They have contributed over 1,000 public housing units, and now we have one more current fiscal year and when that ends… .
All of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments are urging with their letters and the bureaucratic federal deputy ministers have been meeting throughout the year, lobbying the federal government and urging them to announce their funding.
Madam Finlay, federal Minister responsible for CMHC, has been quite silent. Last month, we urged her with the signed letters of all of the ministers for a teleconference. She did not accept that.
So we need your help, really, in urging the federal government.
We look forward to March 22 whether or not there will be any funding at all for new housing.
Okay, we got Elliott.
My question was almost what Mr. Ningark’s was in terms of seeking alternate funding sources. I don’t know whether there were any secret pots of money that he knew we could access, but I think he explained that question very well.
Not only with the public housing, I think the corporation will be challenged now to review the way in which it bills, including staff housing. For instance, the GN has been putting up upfront costs directly to staff housing. Would there be any benefit in, for instance, going on the private sector route for staff housing and going in for lease arrangements with private contractors?
Whether or not that would help remains to be seen and we have not at all had any policy or whatever changes, but these are up for review right now.
That’s what we mean by whether or not an alternative source of funding is something that should be looked at, but we’re going to have to be vigilant about how best to try and find resources.
I seem to remember a few years ago, I thought the approach of the government was to get out of some of the long-term leases that they did have with some of the landlords.
I wasn’t actually involved in this House at that time, but just reading stories in the newspaper about how some of the living conditions that our government employees were put in because of some of the contracts and some of the conditions that these leased buildings were in, I thought at that time that the government of the day was moving away from leasing the houses and getting out of that service. So are you saying that the GN is going to start doing that again?
What the corporation will be doing is a cost-benefit analysis to see what options we can pursue. One of the things we recognize is, going forward, that we cannot do everything on our own.
The cost capital-wise and O&M-wise to meet the needs of Nunavummiut cannot be a full burden on the GN. What we wish to explore further is opportunities to assist the private sector in establishing themselves, especially in some of our smaller communities.
So possibly, as Minister Curley has mentioned, if there were opportunities to lease rather than to build on our own, it could help establish a private sector base in smaller communities. Maybe then they will have the critical mass to start building houses on spec for sale for homeowners and private leasing.
So we will be exploring those avenues further.
I don’t have any other names on the list here. We will go to L-3. Department Summary.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. In the business plan, it’s from page 6 to 21. There is only one page there, so you can ask any questions on this page.
This is not really O&M related, but it is in the business plan, so I’ll ask the question.
Your draft 2011-14 business plan indicates that one of the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s priorities is to “Monitor issues of environmental liability due to aging oil tanks throughout Nunavut. If necessary, continue to support the oil tank replacement program, which prioritizes the replacement of oil tanks of senior and vulnerable homeowners.
As of September 2010, there have been 60 approvals and 171 submitted applications.”
Can you explain why your business plan indicates that the Nunavut Housing Corporation will continue support on the program if necessary when it’s clear from the number of applicants that the program is in demand?
When you bring that up in the business plan, could you state on what page that is just so we can all follow.
I had the question pre-written, so I don’t know where it is in the business plan at this time.
The reference in the business plan is to the fact that the Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program was established for a five-year period.
So at this point, it’s a program that is set to expire after five years of duration.
This program was initiated due to a high demand from homeowners identifying a critical issue in terms of oil tanks that were aging and causing potential environmental hazards.
Besides this program, the Nunavut Housing Corporation still has its Home Renovation Program, which is available to people with an adjusted income of less than $125,000 per year.
So there are other programs that will help address this.
This was a particular initiative to deal with homeowners in the specific situation.
If there is still a high demand from homeowners for this program towards the end of the five-year period, the intention was to reassess at that point if there was a justification to continue the program or to extend it.
In regard to public housing, a lot of their fuel tanks have aged too.
Have you completed a replacement program for all of the public housing ones?
Through our modernization and improvement programs for the public housing stock of Nunavut, besides heating oil tanks, we identify heating systems and other components of buildings that need replacement, so they are identified and prioritized based on the need. We do have a program that addresses this on a case-by-case basis.
We do not have such a replacement program where we are attempting to replace all of the tanks.
However, as part of our condition unit inspections and our annual preventative maintenance, we do identify tanks that need replacing and we place them on a priority basis.
In terms of O&M budgets for the local housing authorities or associations, I was wondering: how is that formula calculated as to deciding how much money they receive to operate the core functions within their community?
We have a funding formula that’s used that basically is based on the number of units in the community. We look at whether the unit is owned or leased and whether the lease covers all of the maintenance activity on the unit, same as with the staff housing units that are maintained or administered by the LHO, and that is plugged into the funding formula.
The funding formula is updated every year based on the fixed costs that are part of the funding formula. We look at things like what are our annual audit costs, honoraria, warehouse costs, etcetera, and they are funded for that.
So it’s going through the funding formula and it then spits out, kind of, how many employees we’re funding and the different levels of employees we’re funding. The salaries for those employees is directly based on the NEU salary levels that is applied to the GN as a whole so we make sure that we’re not funding at the higher or lower levels in the GN; it’s the same as what the GN employees would get.
We have compared that those positions are actually at a similar grade as what they would be evaluated in the GN.
Beyond that, we looked at things like material costs for maintenance. There is actually a preventative maintenance list and there’s so much time allotted per unit for different preventative maintenance tasks, and then that goes onto outlined requirements for their maintenance funding.
I think that answers your question.
Part of the formula is also the dollar figure that would be generated for collecting of rent on those specific houses that are in their, I guess, stock, I think is what you had said.
Ms Kimball: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, we do use prior year’s rental assessment. So we take the actual audited results as to what their prior year’s rental assessment values were, we put in a 97 percent collection rate, and then at the end of the year, we actually look at what their actual rental assessments were and we adjust the funding at the end of the year, the “due to/from” back and forth with the LHO.
So it’s based on the true amount that has been assessed.
That helps because I sort of knew there was like a 97 percent payment, but with the number of communities that have arrears, it’s nice to know that it gets topped back up.
In terms of the formula and how it’s calculated, and if we’re talking about sustainability in the future, my understanding is that, through the Nunavut Housing Trust and through the Affordable Housing Initiative, those were capital dollars for the construction but there was no O&M attached to them to provide for maintenance of them.
Could I get that correct? Is that in… ?
We actually do factor in the new units that are coming on stream that year and we actually give the LHOs the benefit of that. So if a unit is going to be completed that year, we give them funding for that unit for the whole year, so they actually get a little bit of a bonus in the year they gain the unit.
That’s nice to know in terms of the local housing authorities, but how about in terms of the Government of Nunavut itself and the funding that we receive?
My understanding is that CMHC provides some assistance which is not provided for these new houses.
I was just wondering if you could clarify in terms of sustainability. Where are we as the Government of Nunavut, not at the community but at the government level, going to get the funding for that?
On top of that, it was my understanding that as of 2032, there will be no funding for older stock houses as well.
Yes, the member is correct. The funding which we obtain from the federal government was for construction or capital only. As part of this budget submission today, we are asking for $4.6 million to cover the O&M costs of new housing units that have been added to our stock.
As well, there is a reduction. As mortgages mature on the existing housing stock, the CMHC cost-shared funding for operating costs also matures and stops being given to the territory. So we are asking for $1,949,000 to cover the reduction in CMHC funding for older existing stock.
Again, what is the housing corporation planning on doing to sort of make it more sustainable?
Are you going to be continuing to ask for an increase every year as these are depleted?
As the houses get older, they will need more repairs and work done on them.
If the money keeps going down eventually, in terms of the sustainability model, you are going to continue to have to have larger amounts of money coming from the Government of Nunavut in terms of the government as a whole.
I think that’s a reality that we face. As the federal government’s contribution decreases, we are still maintaining these units unless we found new sources of funding for all aspects, which we will continue to lobby the federal government.
We’re not alone in seeking ongoing federal funding for O&M as well.
Some of our counterparts throughout Canada are really quite helpful.
They’re much tougher than us, and Ontario and Alberta, we have some friends from that side, but without resource revenues, in some ways, we’re really facing a very challenging situation.
We’re still lobbying the federal government.
Like I indicated, we have some federal partners that are helping us out on this, but it’s something our cabinet is mindful of and we will continue to monitor federal initiatives. These announcements like the federal budget will be key indicators which way they’re moving.
Thank you for that answer because that’s what I was hoping to get in terms of that’s on the radar screen and it’s a concern for the corporation.
It’s nice to know that other jurisdictions are lobbying as well because then it’s not just our territory, it’s all across Canada.
The question that I had was I had submitted a written question to your department about the new Nunavut Housing Corporation building here and how you share facilities with the Iqaluit Housing Authority. In the reply that I received, it had said that the Iqaluit Housing Authority will not pay rent for the use of the facility, but on an annual basis, they will have their budget lowered to accommodate for that.
I’m just wondering how much it is being lowered this year to accommodate for that.