EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
First of all, I just want to make a statement. I would respect your advice. I think it is very helpful to us that we stick to the capital.
Having said that, the information provided by the Nunavut Housing Corporation in terms of the estimates, they do provide a departmental mission statement which is really quite clear and a very short Nunavut Housing Corporation Branch Summary that supports funding through contributions provided through Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation and Infrastructure Canada for tenant rentals and other income.
So having said that, we normally had to try and figure out exactly what the policies or whatnot are with respect to rental policy.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions and I want to clarify information from the minister. Last week, he indicated to the committee that the threshold for assessing income is from 10 percent up to 28 percent.
Can the minister also provide information on exactly what the max rental can be assessed to an individual household member?
The maximum rental currently within the public housing rent scale is somewhere in the order of $1,500 per month, but this does vary by community and by the number of bedrooms in the unit.
There’s actually a fairly large table that we refer to that gives a list of these and they’re determined based in part to the cost of living in the communities.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Barriault.
The reason I asked that question is because it did look attractive when the minister stated that it was only up to 28 percent, but what is not clear is: is that based on the net income or gross income?
The percent of income is actually based on an adjusted net income at this point.
If I recall correctly, it’s based on Line 150 of the tax return. I may not be accurate in that response, but it does take into consideration some of the deductions that are allowed through taxation.
I think we need clear information. If there has been a policy change with respect to those, then it would be helpful if the members could have that. One thing that I’m fully not clear is I don’t believe a change… .
We’re talking about household income.
The committee member is right; it is based on household income.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I’m asking the question is we need the rent scale amended so that the household income is done away with and we deal with the leasehold tenant.
How is the household income arrived at and who makes that determination?
Those determinations are made through our local housing organizations.
Usually the tenant relations officer who has familiarity with the community will get each of our tenants to fill out annually an update as to who the members of the household are and anyone over the age of 19 would be included either as a primary leaseholder or non-primary leaseholder. All of those incomes are then totalled and included in the assessment for rent.
As an example, if an elder is a leaseholder in the community, they could have three or four young people who are staying with her. Her lease could be maxed up to 28 percent.
Is it the responsibility of the leaseholder or tenant, in that case, an elder, for collecting that rent from members of the household?
I appreciate the question, even though it’s not on the capital list here, but yes to that question.
I think, in my preamble, I did indicate that the branch summary statement does include tenant rentals and other income. So based on that, I felt it was my privilege to ask that question.
My next question is there are two items there on the list of details of the capital, one for the staff housing, which is not allocated to a community, and the other is the $8 million public housing allocation on the same page, page J-5, that is also not clear exactly where they’re supposed to be.
Am I correct in saying that the details have not been provided in terms of where the staff housing and public housing in the amount of $8 million will be allocated?
The committee member is right. We have no determination on the details of that yet, but as I indicated earlier, we are working on that with other departments of the government to, again, maximize the best value for the small amount.
Even for staff housing, there’s a need for 907 units.
Of course, for public units, it’s 3,580.
So it does make a small impact on these numbers, but we’re trying to find the best value for these amounts.
I am curious. I think many of us are because the government has made it a policy that transparency is most important within the life of this Assembly, but it doesn’t appear to be a priority that we provide details. When you’re asking the committee members to vote and approve amounts in the amount of $13 million that don’t have any details as to where they’re supposed to be, it really suggests to, I think, many of us that it will be the discretion of the minister to allocate them wherever he may want them in the 2013 election year.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister has an obligation to provide that detail to the committee. One would be to say, at least in part if he could, exactly how many units of the staff housing will be accomplished or perhaps tendered for the construction for these units for $5 million for staff housing.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In some cases, we have difficulty in the amount of staff we have within the corporation, and we do have to work with other governmental departments, including the municipalities.
In some certain cases, the timing just doesn’t fit right, although I’m asking for this budget to be passed so it would carry on with construction and it would start the process of putting out public tenders, and whatnot.
Mr. Chairman, again, we have taken some recommendations of the committee and that’s exactly what we have been doing. We are looking at other options, alternative options of either purchasing or renovating existing units that are out there to maximize the use of these public funds.
I appreciate the minister’s attempt to explain the details that are missing in the budget documents.
One question that I have further is: exactly what is the square-footage cost of building a single unit for staff housing?
Again, some of these things depend on the number of bedrooms. For a five-plex, I believe it’s 350,000. That’s the estimate that we have been using for the construction of a five-plex.
Is that kind of cost ratio also the same for the public housing units?
If you do your math basically for the $5 million, you’re talking about 14 units for staff housing for $5 million and probably slightly more for public housing units, and I would say about 16 or 18 units for public housing, but there are no details.
Where are they going to be allocated?
Committee members, write down the staff housing units, it’s about 14 units, and for public units, it’s about 22. As I indicated, we have made no determination of the location or the communities that they’re going into and this is partly due to a number of different things; the availability of lots.
One of the housing corporation’s immediate priorities is to identify lots within the communities. Of course, we work with the Department of Human Resources to make certain that we’re allocating the units with the best possible needs according to the data that we have in front of us.
Mr. Chairman, it is a concern to… .
Can the minister at least explain to the committee what role will the MLAs have in having some input into where these units should be built, particularly the public housing as well as staff housing?
Will you be asking the members or is the vote to approve it enough to proceed with building these units?
We do go through a process and we have taken the recommendations of the committee to, again, maximize the best value. I’m asking you for this amount in the budget to be passed because it’s going to be very difficult to satisfy everybody. There are going to be only two or three communities that do get these five-plexes that we’re hoping to get out there, including some other possible purchase of existing buildings or renovations of existing buildings, again, to maximize the small budget.
Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister wants, but we also have an obligation to make sure the public funds, the taxpayers’ funds that are spent are allocated prior to having the budget and details approved.
We have examples last week where the public was made to believe that for the local project here, which is really quite important in many respects here, the Department of Justice proposed to the public that we need to build a temporary facility here in Iqaluit to house the people who are being incarcerated.
That was misleading; the newspaper indicated that the temporary facility would cost $8.5 million. It is not a temporary facility. Even budget documents that were submitted indicated for a temporary facility.
The fact is this is not a temporary facility, as it should be, and we need proper information.
When will the proper detailed budget be submitted, if not submitted already to the board of directors or to the minister?
Who makes the determination exactly where the details of the at least $15 million public funds will be spent?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Taptuna.
Again, we had made no determination on where the units were going to be constructed. As the committee member requested, I will be consulting with the committee members on our final decision on where the units are going to be constructed.
As a government, we do have an obligation to maximize the best possible value for public funds and we intend to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I don’t disagree with him at all on that. Everybody will applaud him for that. In order prove that you are serious, you need to provide details.
Without details, you’re leaving a bit of a question mark whether or not you are being sincere with all the MLAs when the details are not presented.
The public expects us to be transparent and the government has made it a policy that this government will be the most transparent government for the Nunavutmiut.
To ask the committee members to approve $15 million worth of public money without details, that’s the first time I have ever heard of a department or agency presenting something without details.
We need those units, but we need them in a place where they’re needed.
During the last spring session, I believe we were told that there was at least a five-plex that had been misplaced in the Kitikmeot and details have not been provided yet exactly what has been done with it.
There was some indication from the member from the local community that materials were being damaged and all that kind of stuff.
We need the minister, I think, at least a couple days, it shouldn’t be too long, if he’s going to have an information meeting tomorrow, to provide more details on the first part of the item.
I believe you indicated you will be dealing with the staff housing allocation and consideration for staff housing units to be built. Assuming that they won’t be in Pond Inlet, it shouldn’t be too difficult. There are houses that are not being used up there and have not been for years.
So can the minister indicate to us whether or not to defer this item would be helpful until you provide the details?
As I have indicated earlier, I am hoping that this budget can be passed so we could get down to work on determining, with the consultation of the committee members, to start the public tendering process.
We do use the needs assessment and there’s a process that we are going to continue to use.
In some communities, as the committee member indicated, there are some staff units that haven’t been used.
So some of these communities are automatically in a position where they won’t be considered because there is staff housing in some of these communities. Throughout Nunavut, there is still a need for 907 units, and for public housing, there’s a need for 3,600 units. It’s very difficult to get to a point where these are going to be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I’m hoping that this budget can be passed because it’s probably going to be transparent. That is a set budget.
You have run out of time, Mr. Curley. I still have two other names on my list. Once they’re done, you may ask more questions.
Earlier, my friend and colleague from Taloyoak spoke about overcrowding in staff housing, and other hon. members talked about houses being not utilized, they’re heated, the lights are on. In my community of Kugaaruk, every house that is built, inspected, and released according to standards is utilized.
When Jeannie Ugyuk talks about overcrowding, it doesn’t necessarily mean that every bedroom is full. I’m talking about a single house.
It could also mean that that house is shared by two teaching staff equivalent to two families.
That’s how the shortage of housing is interpreted in our community in the Kitikmeot region.
When I was coming here, I passed through Repulse Bay and I talked to the school principal. He indicated to me on a one-on-one meeting that we had, a very short, brief meeting, that Repulse Bay does need two apartments.
I think the apartments are very popular because our teaching staff, in some cases, has to resort to sharing one single home, two families.
That, Mr. Chairman, brings to mind, makes you wonder, and I think it’s noteworthy: what is the student-teacher ratio in Nunavut?
We should get to the bottom and find out how many more teaching staff we need in Nunavut and how many more staff housing we need in Nunavut.
So when we talk about, “Well, there’s no overcrowding,” maybe, but there are teaching staff that share the same home.
It could also mean two families sharing the same home.
So that indicates to me that yes, we need more staff housing.
Earlier, I think my colleague from Rankin Inlet, Mr. Curley, and Mr. Taptuna shared an idea about what is $5 million. Maybe we can build 13 staff houses or 18 public units.
Where does this real value come in this amount of $5 million?
Well, I think, from my own perspective, that if you’re going to build homeownership with the amount of $5 million, you can build 35. So that’s just an idea I put in there.
I didn’t hear a question. Thank you. Mr. Enook.
I thank you for recognizing me again, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to ask another question about the same thing that I asked because I want to find out where I’m going to be at.
I’ll ask the question again and I will get clearer.
Like I stated earlier, we want you guys to build houses in Nunavut.
It states that we all have to in the news and whatever. It states that we need housing in Nunavut.
I think about a year and half ago, I hadn’t had a home.
I didn’t have a real house because we have lack of housing in Pond Inlet.
It’s sort of a different community we want the housing corporation to build houses.
However, I believe what Mr. Curley said. The government has to be transparent.
We can vote to approve the money if we are clear in where it’s going, but if we approve funding without knowing where the houses are going to be, then I can’t approve it.
I’ll be in support if I know what’s happening.
My question is, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I think the minister stated earlier… .
First of all, when will you find out or when will the minister know where the staff houses are going to be located in which communities?
We don’t have the determination yet of where the units are going to be going, but we’re hoping that for public units, it will be within two weeks and possibly even earlier for staff housing.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Mr. Enook.
I kind of understood that you are going to have a meeting concerning the staff housing units tomorrow. Was that my understanding?
There is going to be a deputy ministers’ meeting on this and hopefully it will be conducted tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to vote on this budget being happy and being satisfied, and not wondering if I made a mistake or not because it might change.
So I’m not sure exactly how I’m going to vote because I don’t know where those houses are going to be built.
My reason is that the community’s services are already expensive.
If you bring a ship to Rankin Inlet, it would cost differently than to ship to Pond Inlet or Sanikiluaq.
I’m just using that example. That $5 million does not state. I think we are talking about 13 units to be built with the $5 million.
How can they be 13 if you put them to the High Arctic?
Will there still be 13 units built with $5 million or if they are going to Sanikiluaq, will it be cheaper to ship them there and will there still be 13 units?
Those are the types of questions that I have.
That’s a determination we still have yet to make. The requirement is 907 units and we’re not even getting close to impacting that.
For public units, of course, they’re 3,580 units that are required for Nunavut.
Again, I’ve got to state that the budget is set at these amounts. At this time, we’re trying to maximize the best possible use out of that and as I indicated, I have taken the recommendation of the committee to try and do that.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that response.
I’m totally confused with the dollar figures because I’m not really good with numbers.
I don’t want to be stuck in that $5 million, but I just want to get more information.
That $5 million would be used for building 13 units. That’s my understanding.
Do I understand now that the $5 million will be able to build 13 units? It doesn’t matter where or which community, the price won’t change. There will always be 13 units for $5 million.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the High Arctic or some other community. You will be building 13 units. You’re not worried about where you are going to build the units and it’s not going to cost more based on how far the community is.
The committee member is absolutely right.
There are different costs to every community when you compare the freight costs, but we’re hoping to build 14 staff units and approximately 22 units for public housing.
Depending on the outcome of the things we’re trying to do, as I indicated earlier, we’re looking at alternative ways to do some of the things. We’re looking at buying existing units that are available out there or doing renovations to some of the existing units that may become available. No, there is no determination yet of where the units are going to be going.
Perhaps this will be my last question and, if I get a good response, I will not ask again.
What would happen… ? Is it a problem that we have another week before the end of the session?
Just to make me happy and to make the ordinary members happy, can I ask the minister and his officials to defer and then give us another detailed set of capital?
As the minister responsible for the housing corporation, we do have to make some of these hard decisions and we have tried our best to maximize the funding that we’re allotted for public units and staff housing.
Mr. Chairman, I’m hoping that we can get this budget approved so that we can carry on in determining and discussing with our departmental partners on where the best value is going to be at.
As I indicated, there are possibly only two five-plexes for staff housing and possibly plus a three-plex for public housing.
One of these things that made this come about is that we’re taking the recommendations of the committee from the past, where we’re hoping and again I’ve got to state that we’re absolutely hoping that it would maximize the amounts that were allotted to us.
It clearly indicates that it’s $5 million for staff housing and $8 million for public units.
Mr. Chairman, there are units out there that have been foreclosed and we’re looking into that. Again, that’s a way to maximize the public money that we’re hoping to benefit much needed housing for our people in Nunavut. We will never get to that point where we will supply all the units.
It has become one of those things where there have been the CEAP and Nunavut Housing Trust that have completed some of these units, 1,011, I believe, or 1,111, approximately that number. It cost the government over $23 million just for the O&M part and to keep the units warm.
So it does impact our government units and we’re trying to find ways where the government budgets and we’re trying to find ways to minimize the cost of getting much needed units for Nunavummiut, including government employees.
The minister keeps referring to prudently use the government monies and to obtain some funds.
When you’re from a smaller community, it’s very obvious that there are houses very much needed.
I seem to be hearing that if we don’t get this money approved, then there’s going to be no housing built.
I am very much for building houses, but we do have to know how those monies are going to be used.
We would like the information and the documentation because I’m going to have to vote for or against this amount. I have to be an informed voter, and I’m all for building houses of any kind.
There’s nobody here who doesn’t want to see any more houses built.
However, I know that we will have to vote on this page.
If we had the opportunity to deliberate this further and since we don’t have to go through this exercise again, maybe we will just use this as an exercise model.
Some of us regular members want to know the backup information.
We’re not just going to approve just because there are figures in a book.
We have been told that we have to be well-informed in order to properly represent our constituents, and that’s my bottom line.
I don’t hear a question, but I will give you the opportunity to respond, Minister Taptuna.
I thank you for that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I understand where the committee member is coming from.
Absolutely, it’s one of those determinations that the housing corporation has been trying to come up with because it has been difficult at times to make these determinations at a moment’s notice.
It takes a lot of time to look at all the issues that are in front of us, that being land, locations, positions of the government, employees, and whatnot.
One of the things that have become a problem for the housing corporation too is the cost of lots that are out there. So we have to make that determination on what’s available within the municipalities for lots.
As every committee member knows, lots vary, costs vary from community to community, and that’s one of the things that we’re taking into consideration when we try and figure out ways to allocate the small amount of units that are allotted to us.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. I have no more names on my list.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We fully support the minister’s objective to build staff housing, but even during the standing committee meetings, we urged the minister, where possible, in terms of the staff housing, to use a mode of private housing. There are companies that can practically build all the staff housing for Nunavut’s public service staff housing needs.
It can be done. If they are tendered, if they are budgeted, and if they’re allocated, they should be.
Mr. Chairman, it’s unfortunate that we’re going through this kind of exchange. I think the minister should at least acknowledge that we’re trying to be helpful.
We have gone through a very difficult, questionable Nunavut Housing Corporation budgeting process. All the ministers have indicated that there was a fiasco, there was a terrible… . Public housing funds were not properly budgeted and they caused a lot of grief for Nunavutmiut and, to say the least, embarrassment for the public, including the Auditor General, including the assessments in terms of the audits that were conducted all indicated that there were seriously fraud budget estimates that were applied and used by the managers.
Now, you’re telling us to “Just trust me. We will get it done properly.”
And we’re asking that the government do its part in accounting and be properly accountable with the public funds by at least detailing the cost estimates.
Like my colleague indicated, it costs more to ship to the High Arctic in some places.
No doubt about it, the minister is well aware of that. We don’t question him on those abilities to do that.