EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Budget.
The Department's budget figures can be found in the main estimates document starting on page 7-3.
The various pages in the main estimates break down the $97,287 million dollar O&M budget amount.
As well, they provide information on the $35,764 million dollar capital budget.
You will note some large amounts in the main estimate document.
For example, on page 7-5, on the Grants and Contribution line, is an amount of $26,465 million dollars.
This includes Hamlet contribution funding known as the Municipal Operating Assistance Program.
It includes the water / sewer subsidy program funding, equalization grants for the town, grants in lieu of taxes and community development grants.
You will also notice on page 7-12 under transportation, on the other O&M line, an amount of $12,323 million dollars.
This amount may seem rather large, but it includes all the funding which flows to communities under the airport operating contracts.
These are necessary dollars to keep the airports in Nunavut operational.
On page 7-9 under housing, on the Capital Contributions line, is an amount of $19,060 million dollars.
This represents the capital money provided by the Government of Nunavut, to the Nunavut Housing Corporation, to assist in the delivery of a number of housing programs.
As well, the Nunavut Housing Corporation receives $33, 243 million dollars in Operation and Maintenance dollars.
The Housing Corporation uses these dollars plus the $58 million dollars it receives from CMHC to develop its annual operating budget.
As mentioned earlier, once the departments' main estimates are approved, the Housing Corporation will finalize its budget.
There have been concerns expressed that there was no consultation with communities as the framework budget was being developed, and that was the case.
The consultation was completed by the GNWT and the information was then filed with the former Office of the Interim Commissioner (OIC) as part of the transition planning process.
A review of this information showed that the projects proposed far exceeded the limited resources that would be available to the Nunavut Government April 1/99.
It was agreed that the following criteria would be used by departments to allocate capital in the transition year.
Contracts in place/funds already committed
Statutory or regulatory requirements
Health and safety requirements
Third party funding in place/cost shared programs
Social housing, which is one of our priorities.
Once these criteria were applied across all departments a capital budget was developed and that is what is now presented in the main estimate document.
As the Minister of Finance said in his Budget Speech, “In the coming months we will be starting a 5-year Capital Planning Program, which will involve extensive consultation with MLA's, along with communities”.
I look forward to that process so that we can seek input from our communities, so that we can develop the first Nunavut Five Year Capital Plan.
Building a new Government and starting a new fiscal year under new financial circumstances is not an easy task.
I appreciate all the hard work of the MLA's as we work together to get Nunavut off to a strong start without deficit financing.
I had wanted to make those points and Mr. Chairman I would like to go up to the witness table at this time.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Minister for Community Government, Housing and Transportation.
You can go up to the witness table and also Mr. Mike Ferris and Mr. Rafter.
I apologize for not saying your names properly.
You can go up to the witness table.
We have Mr. Mike Ferris and Mr. Rafter, and we also have the Minister of Community Government, Housing and Transportation.
Welcome to our meeting.
Mr. Chairman following are the comments after meetings that were held with the Minister of Community Government, Housing and Transportation.
Mr. Anawak appeared before the Committee on the morning of April 28th 1999.
The main estimate summary provided to the Committee indicated total 1999/2000 expenditures of 133 million dollars of which 35.764 million is for capital spending.
The Committee was very impressed with the Ministers' presentation, especially with respect to the comprehensive and detailed nature of the information provided.
In reference to Social Housing, the issue of Social Housing was the subject of extensive discussion during the Ministers appearance.
The Minister identified a number of critical issues facing the department and the Nunavut Housing Corporation with respect to Social Housing in Nunavut.
The Minister advised that he would be shortly appointing a Ministers Committee to take a look at the issue of Social Housing.
The Standing Committee was pleased to hear that the Minister was open to ways of including regular members to the review process.
The Standing Committee urges the Department to undertake a broad review of housing issues in Nunavut including the issue of facilitating home ownership.
Members of the Committee raised a number of points related to the housing issue.
Among these were the difficulties facing families who want to get into the private housing market; disincentives for seasonal workers to seek jobs because of rent increases in social housing units; the apparent unfairness of the MDAPP monies being available to high income earners; the poor quality of workmanship of many of the southern contractors; the need for more energy efficient, Nunavut appropriate, low cost housing units.
Another issue was the high cost/high mortgage rates for new homeowners and high heating and fuel costs.
The Minister indicated his desire for the department to review options and alternatives across the board. The Minister also indicated that he was pressing his Federal counterparts on this issue.
The Committee urges the Minister to make every effort to pursue solutions to the housing crisis in Nunavut and to maintain openness to innovative ideas and solutions.
The Committee recommends that a review of the DAP program be undertaken, and that the Department consider raising the amounts of money available to 30 thousand dollars.
The Committee looks forward to working with the Minister and other stakeholders in addressing this central issue to the wellbeing of Nunavummiut.
In reference to the Iqaluit Airport, the Committee was briefed on the serious impact that Federal regulatory changes have had on the Iqaluit Airport and others in Nunavut.
These regulatory changes will impact such items as gravel airstrips and emergency response times.
The Committee is supportive of the Minister in seeking additional resources from relevant Federal bodies.
In reference to the Inuit Employment Plan.
The Minister indicated that the Inuit Employment Plan for the department would be released shortly.
The Committee looks forward to the opportunity to reviewing this plan in detail.
In reference to the Legislative Reform Review. The Minister indicated that the review of Departmental Legislation has recently begun.
The Minister indicated that the Department will begin consultations with the newly formed Nunavut Association of Municipalities.
The Committee welcomed the invitation to make suggestions for the legislation changes.
That is all the comments that I have Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
I move that this Committee recommend the Department undertake a broad review of housing issues in Nunavut including the social housing crisis and the need to facilitate home ownership.
Second, Mr. Chairman I move that this Committee recommend that the Department provide a mid-year progress report to the Standing Committee for a review in October of this year.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. O'Brien, and members of the Legislative Assembly, I believe you made two recommendations.
I would like you to read the first motion.
First of all, Mr. O'Brien.
Committee Motion 14 – 1 (2): Broad Review of Housing Issues in Nunavut
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, on the first motion.
I move that this Committee recommend that the Department undertake a broad review of housing issues in Nunavut including the social housing crisis and the need to facilitate home ownership.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. O'Brien, your motion is in order.
Comments to the motion?
I would like those in favour of the motion? Please indicate.
Those opposed?
Mr. O'Brien your second motion.
Committee Motion 15 – 1 (2): Mid Year Progress Report
Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee recommend the Department provide a mid year progress report to the Standing Committee for review in October of this year.
Chairperson (interpretation): Your motion is in order.
Questions or comments to the motion?
All in favour of the motion?
General comments regarding Community Government.
General Comments.
Regarding Community Government.
For many years I have been involved in Community Government and I have also been involved in community councils at that level.
We have had difficulties with the Territorial Government that came about because there were cutbacks by the Government.
I think one of the things I would like to see in this department, since community populations are increasing, we need to have equitable capabilities in the communities for community services.
For example, most of the communities in my constituency are facing the same problems because the municipal services equipment are not keeping up with the community growth.
Since there has not been any increases in funding for those services, that has caused some hardships in the communities.
So I have been thinking that the funding provided to the communities should be on par with community growth and that funding formula should be changed to reflect that.
I am aware that Mr. Anawak wrote me a letter that we would see an increase to keep up with the cost of providing those programs through the Hamlet Councils, I may have other comments to make later after my colleagues have had a chance to make general comments.
Chairperson (interpretation): I thank you Mr. Iqaqrialu, if you wish to respond to that Mr. Minister or …
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): The funding that is provided to the communities is divided according to the population and what Mr. Iqaqrialu has said is very true.
Communities are experiencing rapid growth and I think the census of these communities is behind.
We will make due adjustments.
Sometimes funding is not enough even though you say you have this many people and they don’t get per capita funding.
For example, if you took a census in June, people should know that not many people will be in the communities during that month, so if we are going to conduct a census we need to take that into consideration so that we can have truer figures when the census is taken at certain times of the year.
We need to consider that in June we do not expect that all people will be there.
When there is a Nunavut wide census that will be the basis of funding by the Federal Government and we need to make them aware of that because those census figures for the communities are used to determine how much the hamlets are going to get in terms of funding from this Government.
I have a comment as well as a question.
In regards to housing in the communities, we are increasingly seeing problems in trying to get more social housing available in the communities.
What is going to be happening in the future, say in the next five years?
We can't truly predict that and we don't know how much funding is going to be available, but I think that your department needs to be consulting with the communities to predict what they are going to need in the next five years.
I think the Co-op can help you in this regard, I think that you should be looking at things like the Co-op to provide housing if there is going to be no forthcoming social housing. In my community the Co-op purchased the past governments staff housing.
So, there are some tenants in Co-op houses now residing, even though there are not many, but I think that has eased the local housing authority somewhat.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): I am sorry to say that we haven't come to any agreement about doing a survey in the communities yet, but I will be asking for your assistance and we'll also be taking on other partners who and how to make more houses available in the private market to assist in assessing the needs and how funding can be provided by third parties because we are not seeing any increase in funding from the federal government
Yes, I agree with what Mr. Alakannuark is saying that many of the problems can be worked out at the local level and when that can be done in a community.
For example, when all of the houses used to come from CMHC and the Housing Corporation, even though there were people available who were able to build houses, we always had to go by contracts.
We didn't have anybody who could take on contracts at the local level, but there are now Co-ops and there are more people who are in the construction business who can look after these things.
We are required by legislation to go by public tender and to contract whoever is more able to do the work.
I would like to be clear that if there is a local company available to build houses or any kind of building and they have the capabilities they will be given the first opportunity to bid on a contract.
The other problem that may arise, because we haven't tried it yet, even if the Hamlet, Housing Authority or Co-op is able to do the construction they may be available but there may be conflicts arising out of that, in giving those contracts out to the local people because they may not be included under Article 24.
We may be going against the land claims agreement which is administered by NTI.
I agree that if building can be done at the community level and local people can do it, we support that.
That money should be going to the community, but if the reviewing committee is looking at that I will fully support working towards that goal.
There is 46 million that is divided between the Hamlets operations & maintenance.
This 46 million dollars was arrived at by the GNWT from the 1980 census for O & M in community governments.
For example, in the year 2001, if there was a sudden change, would this amount be changed to reflect the change in growth?
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): You said 26 million?
46 million.
Sorry I was looking for that figure of 46 million for operations.
From that 46 million for operations, there will be 39 million 922 thousand this year and also capital acquisitions are 10 million, so therefore we have 46 million 50 thousand at this time but we cannot find more funding to be transferred to the Hamlets.
I know we thought we would get more money from the Nunavut Government but since there is no further funding available from the federal government, if we were to find more funds we would pass it on to the Hamlets or community governments.
I can't see right now where we would get more money, maybe if you clarify your question further I might be able to give you a better response.
You said there was 35 million without the capital for community governments.
The Hamlet Councils were trying to get more power for the communities, so in the year 2001, if some program responsibilities were given over to the Hamlet Councils, I think those funding levels would have to be increased.
The figures that we are working on right now would have to be adjusted accordingly to what has been transferred to the communities.
There still has to be operations and maintenance that have to be provided for each of the programs that have been given to the Hamlet Councils, for example, DPW or Social programs that will become the responsibility of the Hamlets.
So if we are going to transfer responsibilities to the community governments then that figure that I was quoting would have to be increased.
I think that was the commitment that the GNWT had made, as more responsibilities are turned over to the communities there have to be funding increases as well.
Chairperson (interpretation): Yes, Mr. Nutarak, you have made yourself clear.
Yes, as I said before, we want to look at housing needs in the communities.
I know there is a Nunavut Association of Municipalities now and I think that many of the communities may want to see some changes, especially in terms of turning over responsibility for programs.
If they are going to be administering programs, for example for DPW, the money that DPW would have used will be handed over to the Hamlet Council.
Or, if a community wants to take over social programs which are normally under the responsibility of the government to administer, then the funding will be provided for that to the Hamlet Council.
If we are going to give them additional responsibility we have been thinking that maybe the community should be looking at what they are going to change so that they can operate things at the local level more efficiently.
We know the capabilities of our communities and some communities are better at it than others and government is not as sensitive to the needs of the communities as local people are.
The Hamlets know what the needs are in the communities so we should, as a government, be looking for ways and means to accommodate the needs of the community and their priorities.
I think your question has been answered. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
I think I was the only one who wanted to talk about this issue.
Thank you for getting back to me so promptly.
The Hamlet Council in the community is a municipal government in our community.
The GNWT had a policy, the Municipal Governments were non-profit organizations.
If they are taking over more programs from the government it has to be made clear that the Hamlet needs to know exactly what kind of organization they are going to be.
Are they for profit or not?
I think that if they are going to be for profit they are going to take away from potential business growth in a community by taxing them.
I think we have to keep the Hamlet Councils as non-profit organizations and this needs to be clarified before Hamlet Councils are given more responsibilities that government presently provides.
The private businesses are for profit per se, we need to clarify exactly what the Hamlet Councils can do so that they do not take away from the local residents what could be a for profit businesses.
For that reason, to me that is very important.
For the Municipal Government and how they are going to administer policies at the local level, that needs to be clear and GNWT was very sensitive to that and I think that was a good program on the way the GNWT was handling the community empowerment program and transfers.
I know that there is not going to be agreement right away and the business people, or business opportunities, will not be happy about the transfers taking place to the Hamlets and there will be some communities who will want that more.
So, I think that we need to make very clear policies about transferring government programs to the Hamlets, before full community empowerment goes ahead.
I know that it may be a good thing, but I just wanted to clarify this before we got too far in the discussions about this department.
Mr. Anawak would you like to make a comment on that?
Yes, his comments were very clear, I can even make an example that in some communities they have heavy equipment, either to remove snow or to work on the roads.
Sometimes private businesses don't have anything to do because the Hamlet Councils are responsible for clearing up the roads.
In order to support the communities more, when there are other people outside of the Hamlet Council that can actually work, we would like to utilize them and help them out.
Even if we go by way of the Hamlet Council, if there was a private business to do that kind of job in the community we would use that private business rather than the Hamlet Council so we could give more support to the communities.
In regards to the Hamlet Councils and Co-ops, I just used those as an example.
If there were other capable companies, and not all of the communities have private businesses, some of them only have Hamlet Councils and Housing Associations and Co-ops, however if there were any other capable private businesses we would utilize those private businesses.
For example, perhaps it would be cheaper if we could work for one year with the help of the Hamlet Council, because they do have heavy equipment to work on gravel.
Once we get more people in private business we could utilize those private businesses, whether it be snow removal or gravel equipment, if private businesses have equipment such as these, we would utilize them.
Right now, we have not had a chance to review this or what the needs are in the communities or what there is in the communities.
Perhaps we have not been asking questions of the communities, because we are quite new.
I will be requiring the support of the regular members and the communities as well as the Association of Municipalities.
I am going to be talking about something totally different from previously.
I just want you to know that the Housing Associations were used by GNWT to find out how many people were living in one unit.
The funding that was allotted to the Housing Association never even considered the people.
For example, in the smaller communities, like Clyde River, the budget was much larger than in the larger communities.
I could ask this under written questions, but we have to review all of these issues when we are dealing with social housing, because social housing has caused many challenges and hardships for people in the communities.
For example, if there were 10 people in our home, they don't even take into consideration how much the house is using in water, because there are so many people living in one unit water delivery has to come more frequently.
Some units only have two people living in the unit and the price, the rent, is the same whether you are overcrowded or not.
We don't view these people in the communities so this tends to bring up some social problems in the community in my opinion.
I have been a member of different agencies and boards and some of the communities do utilize the limited amount of funds they have and are functioning well, but others that don't even voice their concerns don't really have a problem financially and it gets expensive to deal with these communities.
I just wanted to point this out further.
I have a letter which starts from the rent and goes on to other social problems and I have a documented letter stating how much money has been utilized for O & M for social housing, but I think I forgot to bring this letter to the house, so I am regretting that fact.
I am going to use myself as an example.
I think we are going to have to be aware that for those people that cannot afford to buy their own home they cannot get housing for a long time.
I haven't lived in a smaller community for a long time so at times I feel I know the communities, but I realize that the communities know their needs best.
Therefore I feel that the communities would know what their needs are best, so we should be consulting with the communities, with the renters and with the people in the communities to find a better solution.
I have lived in Repulse Bay, a smaller community, and I know that sometimes when you have a problem, just because the community doesn't know how to resolve a problem, it is solved by the government.
The government hasn't known the community needs in the past, so therefore they would resolve the problem for them when it could have been resolved locally.
For that reason I will require support from the members and the public out there in order to utilize the funds.
Although we would like to see more money allotted to this department for housing, at this time we must use our funds wisely without increasing the budget, although we will continue to try and increase the budget sometime in the future, but we could try and use the existing funds wisely.
I understand Mr. Iqaqrialu's comment too, and I also want to point out that I do feel that I know the communities but it has been quite a while since I have lived in a smaller community.
These smaller communities are the best people to know what their requirements are, along with the public.
With the support of the House and the members of the public I am sure we can develop this program in the upcoming years.