EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Whether it’s economically feasible to repair the house or not, part of the assessment is to bring the house into a safe and healthy condition. At that point, if we feel that it’s not, then the unit would have to be vacated and we would have to deal with the unit either through planning retrofits at a later stage once we identify some funding or else in the writing-off of the house.
As I mentioned earlier, writing-off of houses seldom happens because we need every house that we can get.
I noted that there are units that are out there, even in my constituency. A couple of times, I’ve had constituents and one was about a year ago, a young lady with a whole slew of kids who was assigned to a unit that is so mouldy that that mould is evident not only on site, but you can smell it.
That has been an ongoing issue with some of the families who are put in temporarily while their units are being built or retrofitted, that they would be checked into those units and they’re mouldy.
My response to them was that it’s almost impossible to get the Nunavut Housing Corporation to inspect these units. I don’t think they have ever been inspected because they’re still occupied.
As early as six months ago, again the constituent was checked into that unit for awhile and her kids were sick every day because of the smell and everything mouldy.
I know that even here in Iqaluit, the insurance companies won’t allow that kind of unit to be occupied because they could be hugely liable for that.
How can the minister improve inspections for units that may be economical, economically viable, but not public health and safety conditions that had normally been accorded to residents?
Yes, we encourage all tenants to notify us immediately if they’re having some difficulties in getting assistance.
Over the last several months, any difficulties that have been brought to our attention have been dealt with immediately.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I’ll have Mr. Barriault elaborate more in detail. I do understand that there are some communities that are trained in dealing with mould and, when it comes to retrofitting, they have this training to deal with certain types of mould.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, have Mr. Barriault respond to that question.
Mould can occur in houses for a number of different reasons, some of them are lifestyle and some of them are problems with the house itself, whether it’s in the design of the house, lack of ventilation, plumbing leaks, and other causes. It’s sometimes not easy to determine the exact source of the mould and someone has to investigate that.
We don’t want tenants to take it on themselves, necessarily, to try to find the problem and rectify them because there are dangers inherent with mould. You don’t want to be breathing mould spores; they can make you sick, depending on the type of mould and your exposure.
People who do the mould remediation cleaning need to know how to do it safely.
We have the new Occupational Health and Safety Manual for the housing corporation that we’re rolling out. We have been developing it in conjunction with WSCC. Part of the processes we’re looking at within that is safe work procedures for our local housing organizations for getting rid of mould.
The Arviat Housing Association has two or three certified workers in mould remediation. They have taken some courses and obtained the training. We do have some expertise in at area.
So more than anything, what I would like to urge all of our tenants is bring this to the attention of your local housing organization. If you’re not satisfied that the problem has been dealt with adequately, bring it to the attention of your district office of the Nunavut Housing Corporation and then it will be followed up.
Yes, I think that’s helpful to know and to understand, but I also would probably ask: why not directly to the public health officials? Is that part of the options that are possible?
I have been briefed on a couple of cases where the public health and safety officer has been called in to some units to check for some certain health problems that the tenants had raised, but they are involved when it comes to that point.
In the short past here where mould has occurred, there are some tenants who are actually shutting off air circulating equipment for their units and a lot of humidity in these homes, whether it is summer or wintertime, has exacerbated the growth of mould in some of these units that are pretty well airtight.
I have indicated in the House before that most of these new units do have air circulating equipment that’s got to be constantly on to make sure that mould doesn’t grow in the units.
Yes, I appreciate those. I think we need to step up the public health and safety matters. It should be an integral part of the whole housing occupancy and administration.
I would like to move on to another section.
Maybe first of all, if the minister could indicate to the committee exactly what you expect or project the municipal services cost that the Nunavut Housing Corporation is facing, particularly with respect to water rates and expenses for the coming year.
It’s one of the bigger costs when it comes to water for our Nunavut Housing Corporation units.
Mr. Chairman, the officials with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and CGS are working closely to alleviate the cost. As the members are well aware, per unit, it does cost the housing corporation $23,000 just for services.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Barriault to elaborate a little more in detail on this question that the member brings up.
Our budget for 2013-14 for water is projected to be in the area of $36 million, so it is our largest cost.
We’re paying more for water. We’re actually paying double for water than what we’re paying for the heating of our houses.
So it is very much a large cost and a big pressure on NHC and as a result, a pressure on the GN as a whole.
The water rates are set according to agreements, formulas, and criteria that are defined in the CGS municipality water services agreement and as well, following the CGS Water and Sewer Policy.
We are in discussions right now with CGS in terms of reviewing what those policies and those rate structures are, as they do impact directly on the finances and the spending ability, of course, of the housing corporation and subsequently of the GN. So it’s a very big concern for us and we’re trying to find ways of reducing those costs, if at all possible.
Has the minister got figures for the cost of fuel for maintaining public housing with the same number of units that we are paying $36 million for public housing? Have you got estimates for the fuel costs?
Yes, we do have figures on the estimated costs. It’s $17,621,000.
Mr. Chairman, also for power, it’s a little over $24 million.
So water rates are pretty much double the cost of fuel. That’s amazing.
Do you go by multi-year agreements with municipalities or are they just subject to one-year deals and whatnot with respect to water rates?
If I can have Mr. Barriault respond to that question, as there are a lot of variables within that, so if I can, Mr. Chairman.
NHC is a client of the municipalities when it comes to water supply or water services. As such, we are subject to increases as they are approved by municipal by-laws.
So as such, we’re not in any kind of agreement that has any time period on it. We are a client like any other client.
So when a municipality decides to increase their rates, we just get notice that the rate has increased and then we have to react accordingly, typically through requests for supplementary appropriations.
A 1 cent per litre increase in a medium-size community will result in about a $2 million a year cost increase to the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
It’s important to note as well that even though all our units are subsidized public housing rental units, we are paying the full economic rate, which is the highest rate available. In many cases, it is higher than even the commercial rates that are charged.
The government may eventually have to put municipal water rates through the regulatory process like we do with the other utilities like electrical power and so on.
Is that something that the housing corporation may be looking at? If not, what kind of agreement do you think the housing corporation would likely get from municipal organizations?
We are working closely with CGS.
As you know, some of these rates in certain communities vary and some of them are not sustainable. We are working closely with CGS to find a solution with municipalities and partners that are involved.
I would like to move on. We wish you all the best because I think it’s something that needs to be addressed and we will continue to monitor that during the life of this Assembly.
I would like to move on to another one.
My colleague next to me on my right was alluding to the disposal of certain assets from the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
I wasn’t really clear exactly what the disposal procedures are, for instance, for sea cans and other equipment.
Could the minister indicate to the House as to what the process is for disposing of either surplus materials or sea cans or any other properties that the housing corporation has purchased?
For instance, with the material handling units, it was decided ahead of time before the policy was stated that they would be assigned to local housing associations.
How exactly does your disposal policy work?
Mr. Chairman, if I can have the president respond to that question in detail.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation effectively follows the same disposal policy as any other GN department.
We are bound by the Financial Administration Manual and Financial Administration Act, and we do dispose of our assets in that manner.
As such, we will make the best use of any of our assets internally and then subsequent to that, if we have no further use, it is offered to other GN departments.
After that, should no other departments or GN entities be interested in those surplus assets, that’s when we make them available to the public. So that is the process that we are following, whether there are sea cans or any other assets of the government.
In terms of the telehandlers or telescopic forklifts, those are a very useful tool and most construction companies anywhere in the world have them as a primary tool that they use.
It’s very practical. It’s one of the best tools you can have. You can use it for replacing windows, for example, with platforms on there without having to put up scaffolding.
So there are many uses for that and we consider it a valuable tool, the same as having circular saws, hammers, and everything else. It’s one of the assets of our local housing organizations.
It’s a tool that we intend to keep using and we intend to ensure that our staff, of course, is properly trained in the safe use of that, same as we would with any of our other tools.
That’s useful. One other question is: when disposing certain types of assets that the president indicated, how is the value of the property to be disposed of arrived at?
We basically sell it for what the going market value is, so we’re trying to get the best return that we can on those assets.
In some cases, for example, we are setting a fixed price for the sea cans because we know the price they’re currently selling at within other private owners of sea containers in a community.
So we have been asking for a $3,000 value on those, but we also recognize that some are in worse shape than others and as such, the value we will be looking for will be less.
Again, if no one is purchasing at that price, then we have to reconsider what our asking price is on it. It’s the same as any other seller of products in the market.
Of course, we will try to recover as much as we can, and then that is funding that is available within the housing corporation for its purposes.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Like I said earlier, for instance, some of these material handlers were sort of prearranged, that they would be transferred to local housing associations. I don’t know how that was determined because the disposal procedures, I think, indicate that, like you say, there has to be market value, but it’s very clear in the disposal policy that there should be an appraisal done.
How do you determine whether to go through an independent appraisal or are you going directly with your chief financial officers where “It costs this much. We will just take out some of the depreciation costs.”
When you transfer it to locals, is that just a transfer? They’re not buying it. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Barriault can respond to that in detail.
For a point of clarification, all of the assets of the local housing organizations are, in fact, not owned by them; they are owned by the Nunavut Housing Corporation. As such, we are making these assets available for their use as per our management agreement. There is no actual transferring of ownership.
We continue to own all the assets, the pickup trucks, the nails on the shelf, and all of their stock in warehouses. The houses are owned by the housing corporation and, in turn, by the Government of Nunavut. There is no transfer of ownership.
Mr. Chairman, the only surplus policy that I can dig out from the government is this current one, the Surplus Disposal Policy, Part A (Fixed Assets). Do you abide by this policy?
I’ll have Mr. Barriault respond to that in detail.
We do abide by the GN’s Fixed Asset Disposal Policy. In the case of the telehandlers, those would be considered non-fixed capital assets. There is a set of Financial Administration Manual directives that apply to those and we do follow those.
When considering disposal of assets, whether they be fixed assets or other, has public participation ever been considered whether or not they have some interest or is that option not available through the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
If I can, I’ll have Mr. Barriault respond to that question.
When you buy a new car and drive it off the lot, it depreciates as soon as you pull onto the road, it would appear. It’s the same with any other asset. They do have depreciated values.
When we look at the surplusing of GN assets, the best use, of course, and the best return on our dollars is to see if any other government entity has use of that asset. The first step in the surplusing of government assets is to see if any of our colleagues have use of that asset first.
From there, it is made available to the general public. Whether that is businesses or private citizens, their interests are then addressed through the public disposal process.
With respect to the sea cans, which policy applies for disposing of these properties?
The policies would fit under non-fixed assets, so thereby through FAM directives and manual.
Having heard that, does that also include consideration for public participation or not?
Mr. Barriault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we dispose of the sea containers, we will only dispose of the ones that we don’t need.
The first step in the disposal of any that we deem to be surplus to our needs will be to offer them first to other government entities.
Afterwards, they will be made available to the public. By that, I mean everyone will have a fair and equal chance to access them.
It’s a significant amount that’s lingering around Nunavut throughout these last few years. You can also go to my constituency at that point where some were quite close to Inuit owned land. I think some of them are on Inuit owned land.
There’s quite a lot of pile of units out there.
Have you determined how many the Nunavut Housing Corporation has any use for and how many are not considered will be used by the Nunavut Housing Corporation and thereby, they would be disposed of in my view? Is that correct?
As I noted earlier, the process we’re going through right now is identifying the material that is in some of these sea cans and identifying what the needs are of our LHOs so that we ensure to keep sufficient sea containers for their storage purposes. From there, as they become surplus to our needs, we’re making them available to government, and then from there, they will be made available to the general public.
It will not be all sea cans declared surplus all at once. For example, we may use it for temporary storage and as it becomes surplus, then we will dispose of it. This will be an ongoing process and we want to make sure that it is structured and that it makes sense.
We will be working and continue working with our housing organizations to ensure that their storage needs are met, and then from there, we will proceed as I described earlier.
Mr. Curley, your time is up.
In regard to homeownership as well as fuel tank inspections and replacements on NHC-14, the second bullet indicates that “To assist and support Nunavummiut to purchase, build, renovate, repair and maintain their homes.”
Mr. Chairman, as well, on NHC-15, it indicates that “The Heating Oil Tank Replacement Program (HOTRP) assists homeowners to replace their home heating oil tank in the form of a grant of up to $5,000.”
As well, the 2011-14 NHC business plan indicates that one of the 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.”
Your 2013-16 plan does not list this issue as a priority.
Is your corporation still committed to the environmental liability that aging oil tanks pose to Nunavummiut?
Yes, we do monitor that. It is a five-year program and we make efforts to improve it as time goes along.
As of today, how many applicants receive funding in the 2012-13 fiscal year?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Mr. Chairman, can the member repeat that question?
The fault was in the audio system.
I was asking for an update as to how many applicants received funding in the 2012-13 fiscal year.
The number of applicants was 94.
I think the Nunavut Housing Corporation should also take the issue of chimneys into consideration.
As we all know the by-product of home fuel heated by furnace, residue in chimneys is also a concern, as old chimneys and non-maintained chimneys are extremely hazardous.
One of the by-products as well is carbon monoxide, which is a colourless, odourless, and tasteless gas.
Has the Nunavut Housing Corporation monitored all of their new homes and public housing whether or not homes have carbon monoxide detectors?
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like Mr. Barriault to respond to that in detail.
Mr. Barriault
Any new homes that are being built by the Nunavut Housing Corporation are conforming to the National Building Code of Canada.
Since the 2005 code, these carbon monoxide detectors have been a requirement and they have been put in place.
The codes are not typically retroactive unless they are life safety and typically there is an issuance from the authority having jurisdiction over the building code.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation, though, is being proactive with all of its public housing and we have been going through the process of adding carbon monoxide detectors in all of our public housing units.
Many communities have been fully completed already and the remainder will be completed this summer.
We will have carbon monoxide detectors in all public housing units whether code requirement or not.
In terms of homeowners, if they have concerns, I would advise homeowners to purchase carbon monoxide detectors themselves. They are available as a plug-in unit to plug it directly into a receptacle.
It’s not necessarily the ideal location. Usually, you want them in the higher level in the house, but it does give you one level of protection.
As well, if homeowners have concerns, we do have our Home Repair Program which addresses all components of the house, including chimneys and whatnot.
Finally, I would like to add that older units’ chimneys should also be considered to ensure that LHOs and NHC have adequate chimneys to be able to ensure sure that the exhaust is leaving the home in order to lower the chances of having CO2.
I don’t think there were any questions.
I want you to know that most of you have spoken two times since yesterday. There are two more people.
In the business plan for the Nunavut Housing Corporation for 2013-16, one of the priorities for 2013-14 is to “Continue to work with the Department of Culture and Heritage to implement the Inuit Language Protection Act (ILPA) and Official Languages Protection Act (OLA).”
I think that’s a very good priority to work towards and I hope that that priority, I think, goes out to some outreach, maybe, for elders in understanding policy and how policies are made.
Recently, with some activities that have gone in the High Arctic, I think a lot of elders are sitting and wondering what’s actually going on or how they can be part of the process.
It’s on NHC-9 of the business plan. It’s the second last priority for 2013-14.
What has happened to a couple of our elders, in terms of the policy within the Nunavut Housing Corporation and local housing authorities, is the number of individuals living in the house. On paper, it may look like two elders and maybe a grandchild who has been adopted, but in reality, it’s actually a visiting place over the weekends for all the family to come.
As Member Ugyuk talked about some family members, where you are a grandmother or a grandfather or a great-grandmother or a great-grandfather to 50 or 60 children, you could have a lot of people passing through your house at different times.
What has happened recently in one of the communities I represent is that two individuals or two elder couples were put into smaller houses, which is following the policy to the tee on paper.
But in reality, to the policy applying in the community and the reality of what and how the house is actually used, it’s a terrible burden on the families as a visiting place for the family to get together and meet.
When I met with the elders and they brought their concern to me, I said I would bring it forward in the House to let the policy makers know, but I also mentioned that this is where I think both unilingual Inuktitut-speaking individuals and family members might… .
What I had said was and what I figured they could do is go to the housing association as well and plead their case, which I don’t think they really knew they had that option to do.
In terms of asking the question, if the policy says that it goes by the number of people in the house and you have an elderly couple who is in this type of a situation, are they able to go to the housing association or local housing authority? Supposedly, they do have decision-making abilities, but sometimes we find out that Cape Dorset or the regional housing corporation will trump their decisions.
Can they plead their case? That’s my first question. Can they go there and plead their case?
I think a few different topics were covered in that question.
First of all, from the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act, we do have a committee for the implementation where we work with Culture and Heritage to ensure that we have consistent approaches and the best impact in terms of implementing our requirements under these Acts. We have representation from all of the housing corporation offices.
We also have received some funding to implement these Acts to make sure that we are compliant with them in all of our LHOs.
Our local housing organizations, meanwhile, at last count, 88 percent of all employees were Inuit. As such, there are Inuit language services available at all of our local housing organizations for our tenants.
As such, if we have a unilingual tenant, they can still get a full range of services locally.
In terms of a situation referred to with the elders who would like to have additional rooms for visitors, we do have limited stock.
In terms of our funding, we had agreed with Canada Mortgage and Housing to allocate as per the national occupancy standards.
In many cases, elders and others have been relocated to other houses that are more appropriate to the size of their current family. I guess the question keeps coming back: do we try to meet people’s day-to-day needs or do we want to provide additional bedrooms and whatnot for visitors?