EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Some of the equity leases, development costs, that the municipalities are charging back which we pay for our public housing units add significantly to the overall cost of delivery of our public housing, so they’re all costs in the program.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Tootoo.
I guess you raised the issue; you talked about land costs and things that when I was a member of the housing task force. That was one of the issues that were raised.
Housing is subsidizing a number of other areas, subsidizing municipalities by paying for the land, which was something that was formerly paid by MACA.
At that time I think it was all transferred over and dumped onto the municipalities prior to division.
Another thing that housing subsidizes is the Power Corporation.
All the social housing units paid the full government rate for their unit, and not that we don’t enjoy it, the residential rate that homeowners get, also the water and sewer, the different services that are supplied to a social housing unit.
There is a government rate and there is a residential rate, and again the government rate is what the LHOs are getting charged for, for providing those services to their unit.
Has the department looked at, and I understand they are being pulled back and it goes back in time; there is a reason why that was done.
At that time government was funded, I think it was seventy-five cents on the dollar for housing and only fifty cents on the dollar for municipal and other areas.
So it was more beneficial to make your social housing costs as high as possible because anything that you can justify putting in there, you got more money from the federal government. But our formula is not like that any more.
Now it’s quite evident that we can’t afford, we can’t keep up, and I’m trying to get the departments looking at, you know, I think the time has come where we need to know our housing dollars have to go to housing and not to these hidden subsidies that are out there.
Another large one that I didn’t mention earlier was income support.
It costs almost seventeen hundred dollars a month to maintain a social housing unit and income support can only charge thirty two dollars a month for a tenant that’s in a social housing unit. So the Housing Corporation is subsidizing income support to the tune of almost sixteen hundred dollars a month and housing said they can’t afford to do that any more.
Are there any plans that the corporation mentioned looking after to try and ensure that our housing dollars are spent on housing and not into these other hidden subsidies?
Mr. Chairman, yes, there have been all sorts of discussions, and actually some progress made on various issues. On the issues Mr. Tootoo raises, on the new rent scale that is coming into effect with income support, there have been changes there.
The Housing Corporation has been working with the Department of Education on those changes on the income support side of the equation. There have been some discussions with Community Government & Transportation officials in respect to the land development costs etc.
I don’t have all the details here and if he wants more the member or the other members want more we can provide a briefing on that at some later time when I can get one of my officials here to get to some of the details of that if that’s what’s requested.
Mr. Chairman, if someone could provide that information it would be great because I know that’s not really a part of the Capital budget.
We need more houses.
We need more units on the ground and where the limited resources are out there and that’s my point, we have to find a way of allowing this to proceed with more than two units or one duplex in a community and I think that’s important.
We need to look at that.
I guess my other question in general right now is...I’ll save my other question till we get into the actual page by page.
Just another matter to follow-up on Mr. Tootoo’s question; we’ll have to recognize that even if we identify where those other costs are that are subsidized in other departments right now, we are paying a larger portion of our pot than we should be and I use income support as an example.
We have had some discussions on that.
The fact remains though; the money still has to come from the GN. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, the money still has to come from the GN whether it’s through income support or through Community Government & Transportation or the Housing Corporation.
So really, those costs still have to be paid.
So, even if the Housing Corporation is the benefactor of additional money from income support for example and it is passed on to the local housing authority for operating costs of public housing, social housing, additional resources for income support still has be found internally to deal with that.
So, it’s just moving money around more so it’s not new revenue. Although it would help from strictly the Housing Corporation perspective, we have to look at things more globally.
Even though there have been discussions and some progress in some of the areas, I would expect that on the program review side of things that is being led by EIA right now, that some of those things will be pointed out and some recommendations will be made on how to possibly figure things out.
I just thought of another question.
I totally understand where the minister is coming from but I guess my comment is over and over again we’ve heard the Federal Government saying that they don’t want to touch social housing. They don’t want to get into social housing and I guess you know having that slammed in our face over and over again, we need to try and find other ways to so that the Federal Government would or could provide funding that could fall under different areas that could be used to address housing needs.
If these things were put under the control of the municipalities maybe extra funding could be thrown into the formula for community government.
You know the old saying there is more than one way to skin a cat.
We already know that they are going to say no to social housing.
Has the Housing Corporation, the Minister and his officials looked at other ways by moving those costs to other areas?
A way of doing it to go back to their federal counterparts and say okay look this is, we know you don’t want to go into social housing, there’s another way that you could do it.
Because I think if we took a picture of what our needs and conditions are in Nunavut right now to Ottawa or anywhere else it would be unacceptable, it would be horrendous.
I think they need to be reminded of that and they have an obligation to help us with our housing here in Nunavut. If they don’t want do it in the social housing way, let’s go to them with some other options and ways that will be acceptable for them to provide funding for a new set of plans along those lines or anything like that.
Mr. Chairman, the member does bring up some good points.
I think he indicated earlier that it’s on the table, on the agenda for aboriginal ministers to deal with, with one federal minister responsible for Nunavut; certainly the DIAND Minister is a positive sign.
I think that’s a major step that wasn’t there before that meeting that took place in Iqaluit a couple of weeks ago.
On a regular basis those officials have different forums and different boards advocating our interests, whether it’s a head of the Housing Renewal Association, we have direct representation on that, and several provincial/territorial working groups on Housing Advocacy; the most important of which is the Rural and Remote Non Market Working Group.
We have representation on the National Housing Research Committee.
I think it comes down to continually advocating our position till we get to the point of hopefully some resolution in one form or another, in the form investment or recognition of our needs there.
There are also plans for another meeting of Ministers responsible for Housing early in the New Year, with a new federal minister. Of course we will be attending that once it’s confirmed and once we’ve secured our position as well.
It’s happening, it’s probably not bringing up results we’d like to see today, but we’re hoping again to see some results in the future. Let’s not forget the overall broader fiscal review that’s being undertaken with Federal Finance that we’re trying to put through to outline some of our issues and needs.
I’m not sure where we’re at, but I would like to ask, I would like to welcome them for appearing before us again.
The units that I talked about, all they have is a sink and stove, washer and dryer, I’m not sure what they are called, and they say they are three bedrooms but there’s nothing, there’s no room for tables.
Mr. D’Arcy knows which ones I’m talking about, because he worked in Arctic Bay.
Building those I think cost about the same as the nice looking three bedroom homes.
I know that the Member did have some concern about staff housing for some of her constituents in Arctic Bay.
We did work with the landlord in trying to resolve some of those issues.
I can say that, as Members know, we are working on a new staff housing rental policy that will take into consideration housing conditions, housing size, etc., in trying to get to a fair rental assessment for our tenants, for our staff.
Ms. Williams: I was not even thinking about staff housing, but thank you for the comments.
My question was that the units that the Housing Corporation has, they have no counter space, but they have a sink, a stove, washing machine and a dryer.
There is no counter space and no place to put the tables.
And then you have your TV right beside your washing machine.
I am talking about these units.
I am sure that Mr. D’Arcy knows what I am talking about because he used to work on them in Arctic Bay when he was working up there.
Do people with those units, you must spend a lot of money because they keep renovating them.
They are called three bedrooms but you have no place to even eat.
Do people still pay the same rent as the two year old units that are three bedrooms?
Where you could have a washing machine and a dryer in a separate room?
I am glad I answered questions on staff housing before she raised them.
On the issue of those units, I think that I am aware of what the Member is asking a question about.
Some of the older units were smaller than the regular size.
In the past there has not been any recognition of the size of units; it has been based on income.
With the new rent scale that will be coming into effect on January 1st for public housing, it does recognize housing conditions, housing size.
So if it is an older unit, there will be credits deducted from the base rent, if it is a smaller unit, etc.
Those factors will be taken into consideration with the new rent scale.
I know that two of my constituent communities are going to get duplex units.
I am sure that the local Housing Associations in the communities have been communicating with the Housing Corporation.
As far as the area around the house, those units are nice units if you are a single person.
Maybe you don’t go hunting.
If you have a snowmobile and you have sealskin stretchers, where do you put them?
You have no place to put them because you have no outside area, except your front door.
There are some steps and that’s all.
I guess my question is because they cost a lot of money, are these popular units?
I think that my colleague Mr. Iqaqrialu has been talking about the same units.
Do people like these units?
And if you are a hunter, and do a lot of skins, I don’t think they are practical for up here.
Mr. Chairman, it is hard to say if people like the units that they are in.
I would say that by and large, people would probably be happy if they have a roof over their heads given the demands out there, the competition for public housing.
I would also say that probably a lot more better designs could have taken place in some of our houses.
In our current community consultations we will also be looking for input into possible design changes for future housing to make it reflect Nunavut’s needs.
Just one last question.
When people are contracted to do renovations on these units or any units in the communities they usually drywall inside the unit and the house becomes smaller once they are done with it. I know that contractors are not cheap but they make the units smaller than they were before.
Is there any way that they can do something so that the units are not getting smaller every time when they do retrofits on them?
I guess it will depend on what renovations were taking place.
If it is interior retrofit then obviously they will have to remove the existing interior and put in a new one and whatever else would be required around that.
So I mean, obviously for the smaller units if you’re losing space, it does become a problem but you know we would try to maximize the efficiency to make sure that if you didn’t have to lose the space you wouldn’t.
Catching up on some capital that wasn’t spent in Sustainable.
Thank you, minister for clarifying it for me and I expect to see those projects completed next year.
On the cost of the duplexes, when we looked at them three years ago there were around 380 and now I see the budgeted figures, 506.
Can you explain to us the land costs and other issues?
I made some reference to piles on houses and the cost of them and how that may significantly increase the cost of units and we’re getting to the point where duplexes are costing us over $500 thousand dollars and I think it’s getting to be too much.
Because I know for a fact that some access units, three bedroom access units can be constructed in community for less than $250 thousand dollars a unit.
What I’m saying is I know that other communities are probably higher but when you build and access units you put on four screw jacks and those are very energy efficient and well built little units. I just want you to start maybe looking at the cost of construction of these duplexes in some communities because I know some in my community probably prefer a couple of three bedroom access units over one duplex of 500 thousand dollars because families are getting bigger.
It’s just something that I wish you would look at and you know maybe if the costs are the same; maybe give the local housing association a choice. Whether it’s a two bedroom duplex or two three bedroom access units or a five bedroom house or something like that so all the plans are there for the access units and the duplexes.
I’m losing my train of thought here but I’m getting back to the duplexes and the three bedroom access units but we should maybe look at giving the local housing association a choice on what they want to construct in their community.
And I agree with my colleague Mr. Tootoo, most of the time and sometimes we beg to differ on important issues but on this one I agree with Mr. Tootoo, but the way that housing is allocated now is fair.
Whether you look at what community has a shortage of houses over the other community, I don’t think that’s fair at this point because communities are growing at different rates.
I think we’re 3000 units short in Nunavut and that’s what we need over the next 5 or 6 years.
I would encourage you to give every community a house or a duplex and not penalize the community because of past differences because like I say every community is growing and Arviat for one is growing faster than any other. But make sure that the capital is spread out evenly and I like this program where every community is growing, Arviat for one is growing faster than any community is, but make sure that the capital is spread out evenly, I like this program where everybody gets a duplex.
And I know it’s fair to everybody, I don’t want to see anyone not get something because I think that sends a wrong message to the communities that have housing needs.
Overall every community in Nunavut, even Iqaluit, has a housing shortage, so continue to allocate housing the way you are, that’s all I’m saying.
The cost of duplexes started to increase and I see a trend here, that you know are we going to be spending five, six hundred thousand for a couple of duplexes only to build a couple of units.
Would you look into that?
That is my only question.
Mr. Chairman, that’s it.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Yes, as I indicated earlier, we do try to take a local housing authority’s request as to what they want for units into consideration, provided that the budgetary allocation is not a problem. But once it gets over that, we have to make tough decisions along with the local housing authorities on what can be delivered.
And in the case of Baker Lake where it feels like a competitive construction market over there, we certainly move the savings from that community to another one that needs it.
We all know that we are in a housing crisis.
We have to build over 3,000 units just to catch up.
When there’s a crisis in the government, when there’s a crisis in the world anywhere then the government takes over. We know looking at the prices it’s very expensive; 500 to 600 thousand.
Can’t the department, can’t the government look maybe in various places like overseas or how they can make units, multi units, which will be cheaper.
We know how much wood we’ll need to make duplexes, so one single unit, or two units where they are duplexes, they cost 253 thousand each.
There’s insulation and all the materials and if you add them together there’s no way they’ll add up to 253 thousand. It’s the labour and the land, the freight, but the wood itself to build the building won’t cost that much.
I would like to ask if they have looked anywhere else to see if they can obtain units for less costs, let’s say all the units were exactly the same, and if you build exactly the same houses in every community to make it cheaper.
Yes there are several designs that we use and are reviewed on a regular basis to see if there’s any adjustment requirements.
Similar to what I was saying in response to Ms. Williams’ question or in respect of whether or not our responses are adequate or not be would be reviewed in consultations with communities and the Housing Authorities to see what is required.
Have you also looked at other countries and other jurisdictions that could build cheaper housing than 506 thousand dollars?
Yellowknife has a Styrofoam kind of design now, have you looked at that.
What other modern designs are in southern Canada or United States?
Because we know for two units 506,000 is not acceptable.
Two by fours are going to cost how much?
Or the furnace, etc. etc.?
You know what the contents of the buildings are.
The transportation, the land, the steel piles, etc., makes it very, very expensive.
There must be a cheaper way.
Have you looked at the building codes, if they can be lowered for residential purposes if individual Nunavummiut want to build their own or if you’re planning to build cheaper public housing?
Mr. Chairman, we haven’t, I would say too aggressively looked at other options that the member has put forward and we recognize that it’s two facets I guess of our public housing program.
One obviously is to provide the housing as much as possible.
The other is there is some economic spin off from that, certainly for the construction. There are spin offs for the contractors and generally smaller operators in some of our communities, in trying to support NNI and the business in the communities based in Nunavut, a lot of which work on some of the public housing and housing authority contracts that are let on an annual basis.
From that perspective, I mean, there haven’t been a lot of other options looked at and as well, I guess that’s it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairman, I understand and support local contractors, which is hard, you know, barely nil; there’s some local contractors in some communities, majority of them are not local contractors.
I would support them for economic purposes, but we are in crisis; we are in a housing crisis.
The shortage of three thousand houses in Nunavut is a crisis and we will have to recognize as a government you have to intervene to correct the situation.
We have not aggressively intervened as a government after the review by the committee, the special committee on housing; we haven’t really taken any aggressive steps to fast track and deal with the problem, the crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I guess what I’m saying is that two things are happening.
The detriment is to the quiet people, the old people, the elderly who are chronically ill, who are not being assisted very well by the health department, these are the quiet victims.
The homeless people, overcrowded families barely survive, are also the quiet victims.
And we as a government have to recognize that.
I think just because they’re quiet doesn’t mean there’s no problem there.
I would ask the minister if he would take a more aggressive approach to recognizing and dealing with the housing crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to do that, recognizing though particularly in respect to the business sector, and the NNI policy. If we’re to look at some dramatic changes in our contracting procedures or procurement procedures, in respect of the materials for public housing, there would be some political implications to that. Similar to what’s been raised in respect of resupply for our fuel products that has taken place and been dealt with over recent days and weeks.
So I will take that under advisement and see what options are available.
On the other matter earlier Mr. Chairman, the member also raised the issue about national building codes whether they could be lowered or not. The national building codes are safety standards but if there is a move to try to work around that, I guess the issue would be for us to make sure that the integrity of the units being built is still met.
That the life expectancy for those units is not compromised, and those factors would have to be taken into consideration.
My last question for now, for general questions, is that we have not been able to design a house for Nunavut respecting the cultural activities in the house.
Ms. Williams mentioned about a hunter or a hunter’s wife, that there is no consideration in design to accommodate them.
Have you considered promoting architect training for Nunavummiut as you did with the law school and financial accounting programs and nursing?
Have you considered training architects for Nunavummiut so that they can become architects or engineers in Nunavut and knowing how we live at the same time?
No, we haven’t gotten specifically to that issue of architectural support for possible training and those interested in that field.
I think we would work with education, Arctic College if there was a demand out there.
I think the first focus for us right now, as I indicated earlier, is to try to get the communities’ input into some of the designs and work with that.
First recognizing that something like what Mr. Arvaluk is raising about having actual architects certified and go on an individual interest in going through that process is a bit of a, would require a bit of time and investment.
Mr. Arvaluk: That seemed to be my last question but not having considered that area, does the Housing Corporation have a committee or design committee on the, I don’t know what they call this. There is a design; you have this preliminary design, the kind of house that you would build for Nunavummiut.
These feasibility type of things; I think Mr. Picco has a beautiful name for it for Chesterfield Inlet when you have a rough sketch as to what kind of house that would be before you take it to the architect or engineer or electrician etc., so that houses can be better utilized by the occupants.
Right now, there are quite a few houses in Iqaluit, when I go in there none of them suit me, it doesn’t suit my activities in the house.
My son built an Ulu there and I cannot do the sealskins.
They do nothing except watch and sleep.
I think that our attitude towards the design has to change.
The Member does raise some good points there.
It was indicated earlier we did adopt all the designs that came over on April 1st, 1999.
There have been some small modifications on simple things, such as the allowance for cold porches in some of the newer buildings.
There is an ongoing review for existing designs.