EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Just because a lot of families must move because of their family size and change and we shouldn't discriminate or hold them back from buying their units if they so wish.
So what we came out with at this point is that any unit would have to be agreed upon by both the local housing organization and the Housing Corporation.
Then that way it gives a bit of buffer so we can take a look at each case on an individual basis to stop their concerns regarding speculation or re-allocating and transferring units to get the best one in town.
So we had the same concerns and we will make sure that we work on this, fine tune it and present it to the Standing Committee.
Like I say, what's to stop private developers from making deals with tenants to buy their house and give them a bonus for buying it.
That is my fear.
That is my fear that this could happen.
And the next thing we know we are out of housing.
The other thing that I wanted to talk about is I'll ask it as a question.
Your program that just seems to be a flurry in my community is applying money for funds to fix windows and doors.
They are all private homeowners and they were really excited about the program and they finally got approved.
They just got approved three weeks ago and it is very difficult to replace windows and doors and steps and everything at this time of year because they missed the barge season and things have to be flown in.
Windows and doors and various insulation packages.
But it is a good program.
I think the meaning of it was really good.
So the question that I am getting to here is that this program is a good program.
But if it is going to be carried over again could you see that it is carried out in a timely manner where people could have their stuff on the barge rather than have to airship it in.
I got a lot of positive feedback on this program and people were quite excited about it.
The negative part of the program is the cheques came in too late and the barge had already gone.
We will try to do it better next time.
That is going to be a final comment on that.
It is a very successful program.
The private homeowners sometimes get a little depressed in owning a home and price of fuel and their property taxes and insurance and stuff like that.
And this was a much needed boost to a lot of them to know that there is money out there available under a grant to increase the value of their homes.
I don’t want to say the wrong thing here.
Sometimes the private homeowners are starting to look like public housing units because they are so busy paying other bills.
So I am just asking you again to make sure that this program would go ahead and if you would increase it.
That is my final question.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
We will continue this program.
It is a two year delivery on this program.
It is a good program and we will do the best we can to follow up on the questions of the member.
During your question I appreciate that you are raising good questions and I won't stop you from continuing.
You can ask as many questions as you want.
I would like to comment about what was just said.
I apologize, it's too bad that the funding is not adequate in terms of the housing associations or the housing corporations' programs. I know the Housing Corporation wants to help individuals that are in need, and they travel to Ottawa frequently to lobby for housing programs for Nunavummiut.
I know they try to lobby for more funding.
The minister in particular has been working very hard to lobby for funding in Ottawa.
I stressed that we support her initiatives and I would encourage the minister to get support from the cabinet members and in particular the Premier so that we can get more adequate programs for Nunavummiut and for the communities.
Because we do need funding for housing.
Looking at that, the community housing needs, we know the communities do need more housing in all 26 communities.
I would like to ask which communities are the first or the last in terms of housing allocations.
Because there are some communities that have requested housing last year and didn't get any at all.
There were others that already received housing a year earlier that received more housing again for next year.
I just want to make this known, and I want to ask which communities are in need.
We as Nunavummiut want to support the communities that are most in need for allocations.
It is the same thing in terms of my community, if my community is in need I would like the support of my colleagues.
We should all support one and other in terms of finding more adequate housing for those communities most in need.
As we know, when a community is in need and is going through a hard time we have to help that community.
Especially when there is overcrowding in one household in a certain community it becomes very hard for those involved.
And as well the allocations to the communities.
How would that be planned perhaps in the next coming year.
Perhaps once we start realizing which community has the most need for allocations.
For example in my community we have a lot of people who are on the waiting list and there are more young people applying for public housing.
And as I stated there are a lot more people on the waiting list.
And there are more and more young people that would like to be independent in renting their own public housing.
And that is the case.
I understand that you stated that funding is inadequate.
As well you heard Mr. McLean say that if the government should have a surplus, Glenn said that he would like to support your department in the amount of 4 million so that we can meet the needs of those people in need of public housing.
Not too long ago as we are aware the Finance Minister also said there is 50-55 million dollars transferred from the Canadian government to Nunavut.
Perhaps your minister through your department can try to allocate some of that funding to put into these Housing Corporation programs.
That is all for my comments.
I will have questions to follow.
I have seen the list for 2001 allocations and I am reviewing the 2002 list.
I just want to use an example maybe.
I'll try to make it clear.
We have a list going down and there is one community that is on top.
Then as you go down comparing the two lists there is a change.
The priorities change.
The community that was ahead in the first year to get houses was sort of dropped way down.
I am not sure how that works.
I am trying to get some picture as to why it dropped so low compared to the 2001 list.
The reason I am asking is because this community didn't get houses that year and yet the community dropped lower. I am not sure what that is.
Maybe you could explain the reasons for that.
On the allocation of units, I think it is pretty hard to please everybody when we have 26 communities and we just have just a certain amount of capital dollars to address the issue.
So we have to think this through.
The best way that we have done this is that we get the numbers from the Local Housing Organizations themselves.
So we ask them how many units they have in their communities.
How many people are living in those units and then the number comes up to us.
And it doesn't matter if the names of the communities are not there.
Because we base it on the number of tenants per unit and then we rank them with those numbers.
Then the community name comes after that.
I understand the member's frustration.
We could do what the task force recommended and build all over the place with 1 hundred units, which we did.
Then we got criticized for not building any in the communities that had the most needs and were frustrated the same as the others that didn’t need as much.
Some of our communities in Nunavut, the birth rate has gone a lot faster or there are more in those communities.
Some of them are really lacking in social housing units.
And I understand the frustration of the member because according to the list that we have come up with in consultation with the LHO managers, the numbers come directly from the communities and it is not based on the waiting list, but based on the units we have and how many people we have in those units.
The list is pretty straightforward.
Some of the communities for so many years have had an overcrowding situation and it is going to take a few more years I think anyway to put them to the Canadian average, which I think is 2.7 or something like that.
We have done the best we can to try to spread the units this year for the coming year again.
All I can say Mr. Chairman is that when I went before the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee tells me don't do it this way.
If they have a better idea for allocating the units it might not be fair because we would be starting to have favouritism instead of looking at the actual numbers we have in the communities and how many tenants we have in those units.
We have thought this through.
Through the officials, through the LHO’s, for the last two years and I think this is the best way of addressing the housing needs.
If we were to get more capital dollars we could certainly strengthen the number of units across the Territories.
Right now with the dollars we have, we will be able to build more than 50 units and we will able to cover most of the communities that have the highest needs.
With that Mr. Chairman I would just like to conclude my comments.
I would just like the members to watch what questions you raise.
Some questions might have been raised already.
So just be cautious as to what has been asked.
When you want to ask a question sometimes you have a follow up question.
So it gets longer.
I understand what you are talking about.
When you were talking about the Housing Corporation it is hard when you have inadequate funding for the population that we have.
When you go down to Ottawa for consultations or for meetings and when you state that in Nunavut there are many residents who are in need and the funding is inadequate to run those programs, I wonder what they say, when they answer your questions.
What are the answers that you receive.
Do you make your comments clear or your statements clear, what do they say, perhaps they would say the funding that we would allocate is smaller, I’m just wondering.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have gone down to Ottawa and to other communities to have cabinet meetings.
When we meet with the other Ministers, only the Ministers are allowed to speak at that meeting so regular citizens cannot make their comments. At the Ministers' meetings, only the Minister responsible for housing can speak.
So we can’t get anyone other than the minister to speak but I can tell you every time I go down to Ottawa to meet with the my counterpart, every time I met with him he understands my predicament.
He understands that the Inuit of Nunavut have a housing crisis, they do understand that.
But also they have to allocate the funding across all the provinces in Canada and Territories and once they allocate that funding whether it be transportation or education we get a smaller portion of funding just because their funding has to be budgeted and allocated for all Canadian jurisdictions and they do understand our predicament.
In 1993 the construction of housing of special units was shut down from Ottawa, so that they stopped building units at that time, and if we were to find funding to build units for rental units there’s no funding out there but we have to work with them and that’s how we can come up with an agreement.
Mr. Chairman I expect that within maybe at the end of this month that I will be meeting with my counterparts perhaps the Minister’s Responsible for Housing and it’ll be very interesting to have that meeting and I would like to hear that they will be allocating us some funding at least.
If they can provide us this funding we could build additional units or increase the units that are going to be built.
ITC and Nancy Karetak-Lindell and myself and NTI and all my Cabinet Colleagues, one at a time have reiterated that we require more units when they meet with their counterparts in Ottawa.
The Minister of the Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation does understand our housing shortage.
They follow policies when they start allocating their funding and due to our smaller population we get the minimal amount of funding but perhaps I expect in my Quebec meeting, I expect to get additional funding but that’s just an expectation.
We would like to hear your response when you get back from Quebec as to how the meeting went.
I will return back to the question.
There are communities that go in some kind of order for those that need it the most to those that need it least.
For instance, Kugluktuk was ahead of Pangnirtung and Chesterfield in terms of prioritizing housing needs.
Those two are ahead of Kugluktuk now.
Yes, those communities are in need of housing too.
Yes, I realize that.
In Pangnirtung and Chesterfield.
I am not against that.
I am saying how was this decision made.
Those communities that needed the housing first were put on the bottom.
I am not against those communities but how did situation come about.
Kugluktuk is not at the bottom.
Kugluktuk is still in the same place.
We will build units in Kugluktuk.
The member has always been stating that Kugluktuk, that at least if we can build units that are geared towards the youth that he would be happy.
So for that reason we will build units in Kugluktuk.
I spoke with the Hamlet Council of Kugluktuk and the LHO about building those units in Kugluktuk. (interpretation ends) I don't want to frustrate the members.
But we are doing a special project in Kugluktuk.
It is still on the list.
I know it was before Chesterfield and Pangnirtung.
We are going to do a special project in Kugluktuk.
We haven't skipped Kugluktuk.
The member said that he would like the units to be more geared towards the youth population.
That is what we have gathered from the member.
We could build two units in his community or with the special project we could build six.
We are doing a special project in Kugluktuk according to the wish of the member.
We have not moved any of the houses, we are doing it according to the number of tenants per unit, which we got from the LHO’s.
I can see what you are doing here.
The way it shows, because it shows zero, it seems it went to the low part. That is why it seems like they skipped it and went back down to Pangnirtung and to Chesterfield.
Maybe their needs were lower than Kugluktuk and our needs were higher.
I understand when you say there is a special project.
But if it wasn't that case.
I guess the needs for Kugluktuk were lower than Pangnirtung or Chesterfield.
I sorry, I’m getting myself confused on this.
I understand where you are coming from. There will be a special project I guess.
But when you really look at the way it works, it’s just like it is skipped out.
That's how it seems.
I will ask a question later on but that’s just a comment.
That was a comment.
I think Madame Minister would like to respond.
The choice is Kugluktuk gets two units like everybody else or we can do a special project and he can get six.
Because we did, in Baker Lake the elders’ home was in very bad shape, so we were able to do a separate project, which should have been built last year.
Because the member and also the Hamlet wanted us to build an elders' home.
So we did a separate project for them under our reserve and we are able to do that.
We have not moved any community higher than anybody.
The member has a choice.
Does he want the two units, or does he want a special project with six units that will work with their Hamlet on that, or the LHO.
It is really up to him.
We can move to another community that has been asking for more youth oriented apartments or something else like the member was doing.
I can easily change those numbers and give Kugluktuk two units if he would like that instead.
But I thought that Mr. Chairman, he wanted us to do a separate project after we talked to him, because he has been wanting something that was slightly different.
So it is really up to the member.
Mr. Havioyak: Thanks for the clarification.
I didn't have the numbers earlier on, so I was just trying to confirm the numbers, that's why I was raising it.
Now that I know where you are coming from I would rather go with the six units.
It was not clear before, I was unclear.
I am sorry if I said that.
It is clear now, we will go with the special project.
Although I didn't hear a question.
I am sure that my officials have been speaking with the member here and I am sure that he understands that we are just following the numbers in the communities and also how many tenants there are in the communities.
We are just following that, it doesn’t matter what the names are of communities.
We just follow the number of tenants and the number of units, so it would be the same.
Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the committee mentioned earlier and to flog it again, it is something that I have been saying since day one, is that housing is one of our top two priorities and I think it is time we start putting our money where our mouth is.
It was nice to see the capital allocation for housing is up to 17 million dollars from 14, but the year prior to that it was at 19 and pre-division for Nunavut it was 50 million.
The Baffin Region alone used to be more than what the total budget for the whole of Nunavut is now.
So I would really like to see and I don't doubt that it is for lack of trying on the behalf of the Department or the Corporation and the minister.
But again, as the Chair of the committee stated, the rest of Cabinet has to take it, you know put your money where your mouth is.
Housing we all agreed in the Bathurst Mandate was a priority and I’d like to see it become a reality instead of just being talked about.
Some of the other things that I’d like to ask some questions on or look at.
The Chairman also talked about looking at the purchase program that’s out there for public housing units.
I know given my the past experience, people that have been, in the past have been brought into the homeownership program after not realizing you know what they got themselves in for and we’re finding that they couldn’t afford it.
So I know I mentioned it in the question period in the Leadership Review.
But I think it’s something that’s very important because you don’t want to be setting people up for failure to be you know foreclosed on.
And I think some of the past programs did that and I want to be very careful that we don’t do the same thing.
A lot of the people that are probably going to be targeted for this program I would imagine that bitterness they’ve held for a long time or a lot of elders.
To make it short, people with fixed income and any fluctuation in their cost of living, you know there’s all kinds of costs public housing tenants don’t have but they do as a homeowner.
I can’t overemphasize the importance of making sure that both things are taken into consideration.
I believe there’s got to be a different criteria that’s looked at than what’s already there.
With the existing programs we have right now we are looking at providing assistance of fifteen thousand and twenty five thousand I imagine in these cases the houses are going to be sold for a lot less.
And people probably wouldn’t be able to qualify to the banks for a very high mortgage.
So the very limited income basis that we’re working with is even more important that it be looked at properly.
Another thing that I’d like to see is again the Chair recommended more money be put into the M & I and the maintenance of our units.
Our inventory is getting older and as our inventory gets older it costs more to maintain it.
That’s one thing that I think in the past through lack of resources and not by lack of wanting to do something about it, if due to the lack of resources for the maintenance function of the corporation hadn’t been neglected, it’s not that they didn’t want to do it they didn’t have the resources to do it.
I think if we maintain and look after our housing by retrofitting it and making them more energy efficient that would save us money.
It would reduce our own end cost in the long run.
I think that’s important.
I think I’ll leave it at that for my comments Mr. Chairman and I do have some questions.
Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Questions.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the minister had indicated that there were thirty five applicants under the NDAP program and that there was roughly two million dollars allocated towards homeownership.
In what percentage of use roughly is that as far as what percentage of the funding for homeownership programs has been used to date and what percentage hasn’t.
I will ask Mr. D'Arcy to respond to the question.
Mr. D'Arcy.
Mr. D'Arcy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We haven't actually finalized our second quarter results as of yet.
But we do know that to the end of October, there have been fifty applications under NDAP purchases, of which 28 have been approved.
There have been 10 under NDAP new construction.
So that's about 1 million dollars I would say, so far out of the 2 million dollar appropriation, in terms of pending applications.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. D'Arcy.
Mr. Chairman, then what he is saying is it looks like roughly half way through the year we have 50% of the program used.
I am just wondering if they think, or feel and given the history, that most of these programs are accessed during and prior to construction season and sealift.
Because usually after that there is not a whole lot of demand for them.
So do they anticipate using the other 50% or are there new applications coming in.
I know you gave the first half of the year results.
But I was wondering if they anticipate enough applications that they will be able to prove to be able to use up the rest of the program funds, given the timing that it has to be done prior to the end of March without any sealift, Mr. Chairman.
The 2 million dollars is also for the home repair programs, the emergency repair programs and the senior citizen's home repair program.
All of those are rolled up under the 2 million dollar umbrella.
So far this year there have been 462 applications for all of those together, many of which are still undergoing scrutiny.
We would expect that we are going to be subscribed and over-subscribed.
As long as those applications are approved before the end of March, then we will consider them done and people will be able to float their materials up next year and be able to do that program.
So we are quite confident that we are subscribed and over-subscribed.
Along those lines we are still working with CMHC to partner some of these programs so that we will be able to get some additional funding for this fiscal construction year, if you like, as opposed to the summer actual construction.
Mr. Chairman, that is an impressive number of applicants of 462.
Out of those 462 how many of them would have been approved.
Like a number of approved versus, were there a lot that weren't approved.
So far we have had 101 approvals.
I do not have the number of people who have been denied.
But sometime at the end of the year, we will be able to do a post-mortem on this year and be able to look at what we are doing for next year.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to getting that information and I think the reason for inquiring about that, is that I believe and it is obvious that the Chairman thought so too with his recommendation.
I think our housing programs, our homeownership programs or any of our housing dollars need to be geared to the people who need it the most.
I feel under the current program, given the very limited assistance, that is usually families with dual incomes that really, they probably could do without that support. Where the people that really need that support are single income families, people that can’t afford a huge mortgage to buy a house and I think those are the people that we need to try and target our programs towards.
And that would be interesting to find out if the people that didn’t get approved under the current program what some of the reasons were. Was it, you know because of income levels and you know we need to take a look and analyze that information to see where, you know who is missing out on these programs and try to address those things.