EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We want to look at different incentives for the private sector to get more involved in providing houses.
We recognize that the larger the community, the more potential there is for market growth.
We need to work as a government to look at different incentives, whether they’re tax incentives or other supports, guarantees, etcetera, that we can look at to support the private sector in developing more housing as well.
Yes, I appreciate that. I think the minister and the president certainly got at least part of the critical question addressed.
The need for comprehensive planning is required.
My question really is: who should be leading this charge in planning for long-term housing development in Nunavut?
The way it is right now, my thinking is that we only normally start kicking at the can when the feds announce some availability of funding.
Without town plans on the map anywhere, we start groping around for availability of land.
Should there be a multi-year comprehensive housing development plan for public housing specifically in Nunavut and, if so, who should lead that charge?
Mr. Chairman, as the member is well aware, we were challenged right off the get-go when the government was formed here.
A lot of time was spent in trying to alleviate and fix some of these problems that we immediately faced at the time.
Throughout the process this year, we have come to understand that some of these things can be rectified or fixed and we’re looking at ways to do that.
To try to come up with plans, long-term comprehensive plans, is going to be good for Nunavummiut in alleviating the housing crisis that we have here in Nunavut.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation is going to be leading that charge.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, I would like Chairman Lysy to elaborate a little more in detail about that.
Mr. Lysy.
Mr. Lysy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on the need for long-term planning, multi-year planning, and how that relates to providing incentives to the private sector.
The way it is right now, we go one year at a time and we say we’re going to build so many houses.
Nobody wants to take any investment risk in land development.
If we have a long-term plan, a multi-year plan, and we announce that we’re going to build so many houses a year, the private sector will be willing to take some risk. They will say, “Wow! We know that there are going to be houses every year, so we will be willing to take some land development risk and bid on those houses when they come along.”
The reference to a multi-year plan, I think, can be very helpful.
I know that this is something that the minister has also discussed and that we have been looking at within the corporation to consider as we go forward.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Lysy.
There is definitely a need stated with the help of Stats Canada that we desperately need over 3,000 public housing units.
So that is a good start, I think, and the basis to start multi-year planning purposes. Without it, it really is a restriction on our part and an impediment to build public housing, for all that matter, and more so the affordable housing.
What I want to try and get at is some indication from the minister that he will work with the other partners and stakeholders to try and ensure that they are all partnering in pushing this multi-year plan.
I think without it, the feds are eventually going to say to us, “You don’t even know what you’re doing up there,” because they do normally cough up some money.
Secondly, I want to address the issue of other costs that I think are within our control.
Should there be additional incentives by designating Nunavut housing and public housing units as charitable rates provided to them in terms of municipal services, including power, electricity? If that is the case, would you be willing to try and again entering into long-term arrangements with either municipalities or the Nunavut Power Corporation to reduce the costs of municipal and utility rates?
Mr. Chairman, we’re constantly trying to look for ways to try and alleviate some of the costs that we face at the Nunavut Housing Corporation. Yes, the cost is quite high.
We are at the mercy of some of the costs of water at the economic rates that these municipalities charge through their by-laws, and whatnot.
We’ve got to understand at times that the municipalities do need money to run. That’s one of their main revenue sources.
Mr. Chairman, we will do our best to work with our partners to try and alleviate.
At the end of the day, we want more units coming to our territory for the people in our territory, and we want to try and keep our overhead costs down.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, I would like Mr. Barriault to elaborate a little more on that.
Again, through the housing strategy and framework documents, we are laying out a foundation for this type of collaborative approach.
We recognize that, as a government, but also in partnership with private and non-profit sectors, there are many more things that we can achieve working together rather than separately.
We are laying the groundwork to be able to do this.
Part of what any strategy needs is data.
The first big step in doing these strategic approaches was to undertake the Nunavut Housing Needs Survey and get more information. That was the first time that Nunavut ever had that level of detail as to what housing needs were of its people, but beyond that, we were also able to recognize that there is even more information that we need to be able to do an even better job. In the design of our public housing rent scale software, we are incorporating these data-gathering techniques to be able to have more informed decision-making in the future.
We will continue to work with our partners. We are, in fact, participating in the sixth annual Iqaluit Housing Roundtable sponsored by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation later this week, and that is a get-together of realtors, private developers, and all people and stakeholders interested in housing to be able to discuss on a common ground common challenges and how we can better work together to provide the housing needs of Nunavummiut.
Maybe if the minister and your officials can help us along a bit here.
Maintaining costs of these municipal as well as the power or electricity costs is staggering.
Now in Nunavut, the information publicly available is Kugaarukmiut pay at max $1.17 per kilowatt hour or something in that range.
I understand that Toronto pays about 17 cents per kilowatt hour.
Now, the minister and the Nunavut Housing Corporation may have some information. Exactly how much are we paying for municipal and electrical rates annually in Nunavut through public housing?
The average utility rate that we pay for each unit out there is $23,000 per year. It is broken down to municipal services, water, garbage pickup, and heating oil, then power and electricity.
Mr. Chairman, if I can get the president to respond to those questions in the exact amounts, I would appreciate that.
Fully one-third of the housing corporation’s public housing budget is spent on water and sewer. Roughly one-third more of our budget is spent on electricity and fuel, so we spend as much on water as we do on the entire administration and maintenance cost of our public housing, including salaries of all 300 plus LHO employees.
It is definitely our greatest cost, water.
Water consumption, meanwhile, is really not the issue for most public housing tenants. Most people on trucked water do try, naturally, to conserve water and not run out.
In fact, the usage of our tenants is really quite reasonable, so that’s not the issue. It’s more a matter of an overall cost of the water program and how those costs are allocated. What is, indeed, happening is that the highest rate is being charged for public housing, which is intended for those who have the least ability to be able to house themselves.
Public housing is, indeed, paying the highest rate, higher than commercial rate for water. We pay an economic rate. We pay higher than hotels and private businesses.
Electricity is charged to the Nunavut Housing Corporation at the commercial rate and in order to be changed, it would have to go through the utility rates review board.
These are processes and issues that we are in discussion with Community and Government Services, municipalities, and the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Beyond that, we are also looking at ways to control electricity costs in terms of consumption. If we can reduce our usage of electricity through different technologies, then maybe we can delay the requirement to replace or add a generator to a community. Adding a generator to a community is going to add to the cost of electrical generation being charged in that community.
We’re looking at different strategies and approaches to control our costs, but part of our discussions as well is the allocation of the costs.
We do pay fuel, meanwhile, at the regular market cost, so that one is not at a different rate than other users.
I appreciate that information. That leads to another question. Surely, we cannot just leave the cost of utilities to chance, including water and fuel.
Fuel is probably understated, but electrical… . Eventually, the Nunavut Housing Corporation is going to have to have at least a long-term arrangement or agreement with those various stakeholders or partners with respect to the municipalities or the Nunavut Housing Corporation. If that is the case, what is involved in negotiating such a possible arrangement with the partners that were just alluded to in order to reduce the cost of maintaining public housing units in Nunavut?
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Housing Corporation pays these amounts to the municipalities mainly for their municipal services. For the most part, it becomes the majority of the revenues for the municipality, so it’s very hard to determine how it’s going to be negotiated. Of course, the alternative would be funding the municipalities from a different department.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, when a municipality gets into financial difficulties, the first thing that does go up is their water rate to try and alleviate some of the financial pressures that they face.
There’s going to be a long-term plan developed for that because we’ve got to prove to the investors that we do have a plan and our plan is going to be a good one so that we can continue receiving investment from the federal government.
In order to incorporate long-term planning which involves municipal services or other utilities costs, I think the government is certainly going to, or the cabinet at least, establish policies and clearly set out incentives to encourage public housing.
Without changes to the current policies with respect to municipal rates by the government, without the policy changes, you’re not going to have any agreements with municipalities.
Now, would the minister be willing to lead negotiations with his cabinet colleagues that there be clearly set out policies that are established to encourage the Nunavut Housing Corporation to develop some incentives for increasing public housing by reducing costs where the government surely has responsibility to address?
I would like to remind you that your time has run out. Minister Taptuna.
It’s a difficult task for sure. The municipalities do get a majority of their funding through their municipal service agreements.
If I’m still here, I would like to pave the way in trying to alleviate some of these problems to prove that this government, the Nunavut government, is capable of managing its affairs so that we could attract more investment from our federal counterparts down in Ottawa to try and alleviate the housing crisis that we have here in Nunavut.
It’s going to take a lot of commitment and a lot of thought-provoking discussions when it comes to negotiating some of these things with the municipalities. I’m sure Community and Government Services and other departments, the Department of Finance, and the municipalities do have to be involved and convinced that at the end of the day, the issue of trying to come up with a good plan to benefit the people of Nunavut for good public units and how to maintain the economic structure within the municipalities without putting a lot of stress on their financial capabilities within the municipalities, a plan has to be developed that everybody benefits.
You had run out of time, Mr. Curley. If you would like to ask another question, you can do so after the other members have their turn.
After Mr. Schell is done, there will be more names added to my list.
I would like to welcome the minister and Mr. Barriault, the president, and the chairperson for the board.
Going back to the statement that the minister had brought forward back in May, he basically had indicated to me that actually, according to the methodology that they used for figuring out which communities get units, Cape Dorset qualified for units, but the big problem was they had a generation problem that they were maxed out.
I will just read you some quotes from there.
I asked the minister the question, “My two communities of Cape Dorset and Kimmirut did not receive any new public housing units.
Can the minister clearly explain what specific factors led to the NHC deciding that no new public housing units will be constructed in these two communities with the next federal funding?”
And then the minister replied, “Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the allocation was based on a methodology that was based on a needs analysis. Of course, that’s the waiting list combined with the 2010 housing needs survey and a mathematical formula that is used to make everything fair percentage-wise.
As I indicated in my Minister’s Statement, the power generation capacity in Cape Dorset is maxed right out and they just don’t have the capacity for any more infrastructures there.”
Then I asked him another question. I said, “As the minister is probably aware, we are going to be receiving a new power plant in Cape Dorset.
I’m assuming that by the time these housing units are built, we will have the capacity for the power. [Also], the current waiting list for Cape Dorset is 96 tenants. Can the minister explain again why Cape Dorset didn’t get any units?”
He replied back to me, “I’ll try and make that clear for the member. Mr. Speaker, the power generation capacity in Cape Dorset is maxed out. They don’t have the capability of providing power to any more infrastructures there, including housing units.”
Lo and behold, though, for sealift this year, we got a mobile generating unit which is one Meg, which is equivalent to pretty well the power that Cape Dorset is using right now.
So my question is: is he going to re-look at giving some housing units to Cape Dorset now that we don’t have a power issue?
Even if there wasn’t a power issue there at Cape Dorset, percentage-wise for the needs of Cape Dorset, there are greater needs within the communities that were allocated the units.
Mr. Schell: Well, according to the list that I had and the formula that they used, there were some communities that received units that were lower on the list than Cape Dorset, so I don’t believe that.
But anyway, we will leave it at that.
Also, I would like to know, when they originally brought out the $8 million in GN funds in a program prior to this out of general funds, they gave 20 units to Arviat and 5 units to Clyde River. When they allocated this other one, they gave another 30 units to Arviat and another 20 units to Clyde River.
My question is: did they take into account that Clyde River was getting five units from the previous program and Arviat was getting 20 when they allocated these extra units to them?
Absolutely, all of the previous allocations were considered and at that time, Arviat was still one of the highest communities in need of housing.
As I indicated previously to another member’s question, if we used the waiting list, it would be only two communities that would receive allocations, and Arviat was one of them.
Even with this allocation to Arviat, it still doesn’t bring the percentage down to most of the communities, including Cape Dorset.
Mr. Schell was done.
At this time, I have Mr. Ningark.
I share the opinions of two of my colleagues who spoke earlier. I’m sure the opinion shared by all members from this side of the House is that the local housing authority should be an integral part of decision-making when it comes to the allocating of housing units in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, I will have a question.
You will recall this in May that I received a letter from the chair of the Repulse Bay Local Housing Organization asking for housing for that community.
I would like to establish the ground for the foundation for my questions.
And then I received a copy of a letter written by a local social worker of family and children services, the Department of Social Services, from Repulse Bay, a letter written to local department personnel and to the local housing authority asking and talking about the extreme overcrowding in the community.
I have visited the community and talked with the family. The signal is strong and clear.
There is a real distress in the community of Repulse Bay and the Hamlet of Repulse Bay.
According to the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s $1 million housing allocation system, Repulse Bay is listed as No. 2 in the waitlist.
That corresponds with the documents from Repulse Bay that I have spoken to several people.
My question is: will the hon. minister stay the course with the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s housing allocation system, at least on target with Repulse Bay as second on the waitlist of the government?
Mr. Chairman, of course, there’s a great need for housing. As I indicated, over 3,500 units are needed for Nunavummiut.
We intend to stick with this methodology of allocating units. If we ever come up with more funding from the federal government, we hope to use this methodology because it’s one of the most transparent and fairest way based on need, not on political need and not on other wants. It’s based on needs.
I think that once we start doing this type of allocations, one of the things I hope to accomplish is going to be to get more units for the amount of funding we do get.
Again, if we try to build in every community in Nunavut, it will be very difficult to get 210 units.
We will probably drop down by 20, 30, or maybe even up to 50 units and that’s not what the Nunavut Housing Corporation intends to do.
We want to maximize and get the most number of units for Nunavut.
I’m sorry, but I believe Mr. Ningark has finished his questions.
The next name on my list is Mr. Elliott.
The minister just sort of confirmed one of the questions, but just so I have it correct, in terms of the new policy or the new manner in which the Nunavut Housing Corporation is going to continue to allocate funding for new housing over the next five years or whatever, it’s going to stick to this new allocation.
Mr. Chairman, again, this methodology that we came up with is one of the ways to allocate units. Mr. Chairman, if we had a lot of funding over $100 million that we could allocate units to every community, but with the amount of funding we got, we are not going to be able to build in every community.
As the member is well aware, just to mobilize construction companies to all the communities is a huge cost that the housing corporation has to bear.
We intend to use this methodology because it is based on needs rather than wants.
Again I know that the minister has mentioned that this is a fair, open, and transparent policy.
I guess my question is: is it actually a good indication of need in terms of all of our communities and the specific needs that exist in our communities?
Maybe if he could explain why. I don’t totally understand how the new policy is any better than the other one.
If he could explain how it is better, it might help me to understand a bit more.
Mr. Chairman, it is a mathematical formula where it is based on the number of units in the community and the number on the waitlist.
Of course, we use the 2010 Nunavut needs survey.
It had a little part in coming up with the methodology, but when it comes to comparative equalization across the communities throughout Nunavut, it is the fairest way. When we just base it on the waiting list, we would come up against a wall where only a couple of communities would qualify for allocation because it’s very difficult to allocate units to all 25 communities with the amount of funding that we do have.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, I would like the president to elaborate more upon the methodology that was used.
Chairman (interpretation): I apologize, Minister Taptuna.
Mr. Barriault, I will allow you to proceed.
Mr. Barriault (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The methodology that was proposed by the Nunavut Housing Corporation and accepted by the board, cabinet, and our minister is to allocate based on greatest need first.
What we found when we looked at waitlists and size of communities and communities’ ability to meet the need that local housing organizations defined and communicated to us, we could see that things were not equitable.
There are communities that have much greater needs than others.
Allocating housing to all communities means that some who have lesser needs are getting housing while some who have greater needs are not getting their needs met.
An example to compare needs would be two communities that have relatively the same waiting list. at the time we looked at Whale Cove, it had 21 applicants on their waiting list but only had 77 houses in their community.
Meanwhile, Sanikiluaq had 20 people on the waiting list but 177 houses in their community.
Even though both communities have the same number of people on their waitlist, one community already has twice as many houses as the other and, therefore, has a larger ability to be able to house the people on the waiting list.
Doing this comparative method rather than just a waitlist shows that two communities with the same waitlist have vastly different overall needs.
Using this method, we can compare smaller communities to larger communities. Rather than just looking at the longer waitlists that naturally occurs in bigger communities, we can look at a relative need and try to make those relative needs more equitable.
As we continue to get additional funding, we want to effectively close that gap. At some point, all communities will have the same relative need. Therefore, we can look then at how do we approach our allocations to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
In terms of how the waitlist is determined and calculated, is it consistent across the board in terms of every community is doing it the same way?
The way the waitlist is done up by the LHOs throughout the communities is the same.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the concerns is: how is that verified?
You have already announced in answers to Member Enook about the point rating system that allocation is done the same across the territory, yet the Auditor General’s report said differently, I think.
Have things changed?
In my mind, with some of the problems that Mr. Ningark is bringing up about 24 people in one housing unit, if there is a point system that’s consistent across the board and if allocation is done across the board the same way and waitlists are the same, why does his community have one home with 21 people in there? To me, it seems like the point system is not working at the local housing authority in Repulse Bay.
How it is consistent, I guess, is my question.
With that determination, I’ve got to say that in the past, the allocation system wasn’t working. That’s why it’s that way.
We want a system where it works in the methodology of allocating units so that we don’t run into these situations that were mentioned before by another committee member.
The Affordable Housing Initiative, which was federal government funding, was $100 million as well.
Yes, for Canada’s Economic Action Plan, for the Affordable Housing Initiative, it was $100 million.
Under that program, 278 housing units were built all across the territory. Is that not correct in terms of all communities were receiving housing through that initiative and it was $100 million?