Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs met this day at 5:37 p.m. to examine and report upon Aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Mr. Mel Buffalo, who is the President of the National Aboriginal Housing Association, is here to make a presentation to the committee. He will put forward some of the concerns of the National Aboriginal Housing Association. It is my understanding, Mr. Buffalo, that you will be covering the housing problem and also the transfer of authority issues. The government intends to delegate some responsibilities.
Mr. Mel Buffalo, President, National Aboriginal Housing Association: Yes.
The Chairman: I believe you want to make a presentation first, which will be on the screen. You may proceed now.
Mr. Buffalo: Mr. Chairman, our group in Vancouver made the video that you will be seeing. I represent the organization, from the East Coast to the West, and to the North. We felt that this video best expresses the issues that we are currently facing. Sometimes pictures and videos express more than words. With your indulgence, I would like to play the videotape now.
(Videotape presentation)
During the recent past, I have sent a copy of our presentation to each of the members. I have a summary of it. I have also included that summary along with my presentation. Mr. Chairman, I ask you for some direction in this respect. I can read the summary, which will take about three to five minutes, or leave myself open to any questions.
The Chairman: Start off by making the presentation since you mentioned that it is only going to take five minutes. Go ahead.
Mr. Buffalo: This is an executive summary of the National Aboriginal Housing Association document that was sent to the Senate committee earlier.
The transfer threatens the day-to-day operating environment so carefully developed over the years. Funding for counselling, culturally sensitive administrative structures, and the ability to offer other housing-related services are not protected under the current housing transfer.
In the 1996 budget speech, the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, announced that the federal government would transfer responsibilities for the accompanying agreements and financial resources for its existing social housing programs, including off-reserve aboriginal housing, to provincial governments. The transfer is viewed by off-reserve aboriginal people as inconsistent. Their premise is that housing is an aboriginal right and not merely a social policy issue. Aboriginal housing providers almost perceive it as being inconsistent with the expected honour of the Crown to aboriginal people, disrespectful to the partnerships made with housing providers, and contrary to federal aboriginal policy.
The National Aboriginal Housing Association, through its national aboriginal political leadership, is calling upon the federal government to halt the transfer and to immediately begin negotiations with aboriginal housing institutions for the administration of off-reserve housing programs.
Adequate, suitable and affordable housing provided by urban housing institutions has a measurable and profound impact upon the health and educational opportunities of off-reserve aboriginal households. Moreover, decent housing satisfactorily accommodates all members of a family. This is especially beneficial in the case of extended aboriginal families, which frequently include grandparents and many children, some of whom may or may not be the natural children of the householder. Adequate, suitable and affordable housing in this situation enables the elders to have direct contact with youth on a daily basis, transmitting language and culture and thereby fostering family cohesiveness and a strong sense of identity.
The need for housing can be justified as either a fundamental human right recognized by international law, or as an aboriginal right specific to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The covenants and conventions, to which Canada is a participant or a signatory, recognizes the following principles. First, aboriginal peoples must be consulted and participate in decisions that affect their rights and well-being. Second, aboriginal peoples have the right to an adequate standard of living for oneself and one's family, including adequate food, clothing and housing. Finally, these recognized rights will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The draft Universal Declaration on Indigenous Rights states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to determine, plan and implement, as far as possible through their own institutions, all health, housing and other economic and social programs affecting them." (Article 23)
In Canada, these international principles have been adopted to a large extent into Canadian law. The Canadian Constitution recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. (Section 35) Canadian courts have stated that negotiations must always be in accordance with the honour and good faith of the Crown and that the Crown has a special fiduciary or trust-like relationship with aboriginal peoples. In the Van der Peet case, the Supreme Court of Canada found that, "Aboriginal rights arise from the prior occupation of land, but they also arise from the prior social organization and distinctive cultures of the Aboriginal peoples on that land."
In the Delgamuukw case, the Supreme Court expanded on how the courts would look at a claim for aboriginal rights. They will focus on the occupation and use of the land as part of the aboriginal society's traditional way of life. In pragmatic terms, this means looking at the manner in which the society used the land to live, namely, to establish villages, to work, to get to work, to travel to hunting grounds, to fish, to get to fishing pools, to conduct religious rites, et cetera. These uses, although limited to the aboriginal society's traditional way of life, may be exercised in a contemporary manner.
The Liberal government has made many commitments to aboriginal peoples on how it plans to work together and resolve outstanding matters. When the current Liberal government came to power in 1993, it did so on a set of promises and commitments that were to form its governance plan, the Red Book. In particular, it promised that a Liberal government would work with aboriginal peoples to develop an approach to housing that emphasizes community control, local resources and flexibility in design and labour requirements. (Promise number 172, page 100)
In August 1995, prior to the decision to transfer social housing to the provinces, the federal government approved a policy for the "framework for the implementation of the inherent rights and the negotiation of self-government," the Inherent Right Policy. The federal policy recognizes housing as an inherent right and considers it a matter "internal to the groups, integral to its distinct Aboriginal culture, and essential to its operation as a government or institution." (page 5)
In instructing its negotiators, Canada has stated that the federal government is prepared to negotiate for the administration and delivery of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs by aboriginal governments and institutions as provided for in the National Housing Act and for DIAND programs on reserve. Agreements may be negotiated with Metis and other off-reserve groups, including urban aboriginal institutions, as well as with land-based aboriginal governments.
Negotiations over the governance of aboriginal housing must take place with both reserve-based aboriginal governments and off-reserve groups, including urban aboriginal institutions. It is also clear that the administration and delivery of NHA programs must be on the table for negotiation.
My final topic is "Aboriginal control: an Alternative." At its annual meeting held here in Ottawa in April 1998, National Aboriginal Housing members passed a resolution calling on the federal government to "...acknowledge and recognize the Aboriginal control of Aboriginal housing policy of Aboriginal people." Members further resolved that NAHA, "... directors seek the transfer of the Aboriginal housing portfolio to Aboriginal control to NAHA and its constituent members."
Senator St. Germain: You describe in here, Mr. Buffalo, the inherent right and the rights. Is there any ambiguity or confusion on housing rights on reserve and off reserve? Could you explain that a little better? I recognize that on reserves certain rights, by virtue of common law or precedents, have been set. If an aboriginal person from my home province of B.C. decides to move to Toronto, does that right still exist? Can you explain this a little better to me? You are quite forceful in saying there is an inherent right. Where does this right extend? Does it extend just to Canada? Does it extend offshore, or what?
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you very much for the question. From our policy point of view, we believe that right exists both on and off reserve. The portability aspect is one that has been acknowledged and recognized by the chiefs of Canada and also by their organizations. We feel that we do not hang up our rights at the reserve gate when we leave the reserve. We believe that our rights go with us wherever we go. That means if we go to the city or to another country, to the United States, for example, those rights that we have as an indigenous people will continue. We would still have the same rights as a person living on the reserve.
Now, an aboriginal person who leaves becomes marginalized, forgotten. He falls through the cracks in terms of policy. He is told that when he moves to the city, he casts away all his rights as a reserve person. We do not believe that should happen. We do not believe that policy of exclusion, of apartheid, should continue.
Senator St. Germain: Do you see this as a broad interpretation of section 35 of the Charter?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
Senator St. Germain: From where do you derive this right?
Mr. Buffalo: Section 35 recognizes and affirms the rights of aboriginal treaty people. It does not stipulate that you must live on reserve or off reserve. There are no restrictions on it. If you move to the city or out of the province, there is mobility in those rights. It is inherent in the "Indianness" of the person, to quote one famous case in recent memory. In the Sparrow case, the late Chief Justice Dickson said that any policy consideration must acknowledge and recognize the Indianness and the cultural and distinctive nature of the person. We are standing behind that kind of philosophy and that kind of thinking.
Senator St. Germain: I can understand your plight. I understand that if you have been dislocated or forced off your land, unable to live on the land, that there should be some alternatives. What concerns me is where does it stop? Maybe these rights should or should not exist, but my question to you is that if housing is a factor, why would you leave out transportation? I am not being facetious. I am just asking you so that I can figure out where your organization is coming from. I hope to be able to put myself in your shoes.
Mr. Buffalo: We are voicing the basic rights that have been acknowledged by Canada as being very necessary: basic food, clothing and shelter. That is why I read that into my document. Aboriginal people must have at least those basic rights whether they live on or off reserve. I do not think that those rights should be eliminated in any respect just because someone moves from the reserve to the city.
Senator Johnson: Mr. Buffalo, thank you for appearing before our committee today. I am not quite clear on two aspects. Why would the transfer to the provinces affect you to the extent you are saying, and at what stage is this process right now? How far along are we in terms of the transfer of the housing program? Can you bring us up to date?
Mr. Buffalo: I believe there are about four provinces that have not yet fully transferred the program: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. The rest have done so. I will attempt to outline the problem we have. The scenario is that once the transfer to the provinces occurs, the rules change to the provincial authority. The housing needs and requirements are then given to the ones in most need of that housing. We have found that we have joined the lineup and we are usually behind, at the end of the line. Hypothetically, what could happen is that native housing groups and native housing institutions in each province would then be housing non-aboriginal people within those organizations because of the policy framework. I guess the assimilation process then continues, but our people will become even further disadvantaged and will continue to be further down the poverty line.
Senator Johnson: Essentially, you are saying that the consequences of the transfer from the federal government to provincial governments are affecting your people's quality of life significantly.
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, I am.
Senator Johnson: Has it already affected them in the provinces that have made this transfer?
Mr. Buffalo: Our executive members in those provinces indicate that yes, it has, in terms of the new formula and new structure of the existing provinces or territories.
Senator Johnson: Is there no overall formula? Is there a time frame for this transfer process for the four provinces that have not done anything in this regard yet?
Mr. Buffalo: I think it is being driven by the bureaucracy and through the minister, but we have not been able to determine what the time frame is. The basic premise of the transfer is based on the Charlottetown Accord, which states that social housing would be transferred to the provinces. The bureaucracy at CMHC has told us that that is one of the rationales for the transfer. The minister has written to other members of Parliament regarding our letters to them. There was no specific mention of the Charlottetown accord, but mention was made of the government's policy to continue transferring social housing to the provinces.
Senator Johnson: Have the four provinces that have not done anything in this regard begun the process? You named Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and Alberta.
Mr. Buffalo: There have been discussions between the federal government, CMHC and the Minister of Housing.
Senator Johnson: They are still working out their formula, are they?
Mr. Buffalo: I think there are problems in terms of the funding and the responsibility aspects between the federal government and the provinces. I know that, in Quebec, at the end of the day, they are concerned about having to take on a new program and bearing the full brunt of it in their budget. That is one of the main concerns of the other provinces, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario, as well.
Senator Johnson: Is it not moving forward because they have still not agreed on the basic way to do it with those other provinces?
Mr. Buffalo: We are only guessing because we are not part of the consultations or negotiations. Through our contacts with the provincial offices and the federal government, this is what we have been able to obtain from those discussions.
Senator Johnson: Can I just ask you how your association is communicating with the provinces? Are your communications and dialogue going well or not? Is there a problem there in terms of attitude or responsibility? I know that there is some friction in this regard. Is it getting any better?
Mr. Buffalo: With the existing four provinces that have not signed on, our organization has a very good relationship with their governments. We almost have an open-door policy with the housing ministers in each of these provinces. With regard to the provinces that have signed, it is almost impossible for us to enter into negotiations or discussions with them.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will leave it there for now.
Senator Adams: Nice to see you, Mr. Buffalo. Let me give you a little history. I have experienced first-hand in my community the effects of CMHC policies. The federal government began building housing in the Arctic communities beginning, I think, around the 1950s. It built what we called a "matchbox" for everyone in the community. The government must have figured that we were just coming out of the igloo. The houses had one room measuring probably 10 feet wide by 15 feet long. That was supposed to be big enough for the 10 or 15 people living in the house. Everybody in the house had to sleep on the floor. There was no separate bedroom. That is where the government started off.
CMHC began to step into public housing in the territory between the 1960s and the 1970s. We had a "home ownership" program beginning around 1970. CMHC decided, out of concern for those living in the community, that it would offer a five-year mortgage, considering the high costs of maintaining a house. After five years, you owned the house, which was worth $100,000. It was a very good deal. After five years, you could go into the bank and borrow 25 per cent of the value of the house. CMHC gave you a guarantee.
In the last couple of years, the program has changed again. It is now called "access home."
At the beginning of the home ownership program, you did not have any control over the size of the house. It did not matter how large a family one had. CMHC made one model, and that was the type of house you would get. That is the way the CMHC system worked. If I owned a house in my community, I would like it to be a little different from someone else's.
The main problem was when people had a large, or extended, family. The kind of design available was not big enough to house a larger family. If someone wanted to add another room to the house, that would cost money.
The current program is called "access home." Now, you have a 15-year mortgage with payments of somewhere around $500 or $600 a month. There are additional expenses over and above that mortgage payment.
At that time of the home ownership policy, the homeowner was not concerned about the cost of water delivery, power and fuel. It was a very good system at that time. Now, people realize that they must have sufficient income to be able to pay the mortgage on the access home, just like down south.
People were spoiled by the first system put in place by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. People were used to making one payment. If they did not have an income, they paid $35 a month. It was pretty damn good. All of a sudden, you had to pay for water delivery and the fuel costs. After five to 10 years, the policy changed.
At one time, all of the department staff, the schoolteachers and government employees, lived in staff houses. They usually paid 25 per cent of their income as rent. Now, it does not matter what your income is, you have to pay twice as much. It used to be that you paid $500 or $600 a month at one time. Now it has gone up to about $2,000 a month. On top of that, you have to pay for the utilities. That is the kind of system that CMHC put in place in the community.
I am just wondering if you are familiar with this system. I know that, at one time, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sent a certain amount of money to some of the reserves so that they could build so many houses. I am not sure if they have the same deal or not. I am wondering if that system is the same as the one we have now in the North. The problem in the northern communities is that people must have good jobs because the cost of living is very high.
Mr. Buffalo: I agree totally with your comments. I worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the 1970s. I know of the off-reserve housing program you are talking about that was started by the department. They were the first federal government department to do that. Then when it got too expensive for them, they transferred it over to CMHC. The CMHC in turn began the Urban Native Program in the 1980s. It went full tilt, starting about 1985, for about five or six years. Then they stopped the program. It got to be too much for CMHC in terms of the portfolio, program and project costs across Canada.
Senator Adams: Now we have a department we call "MACA" in the communities and they work with local people in the hamlets.
As you know, 15 or 20 years ago, CMHC built most of the houses in the communities. They would usually start with a pad or piles to be placed on the lot for the house. That used to cost nothing. Now, before the house is started, they want $40,000. That is happening in every community. The people who live in the communities do not have big incomes. Why would CMHC do that?
At one time they built low-cost housing. It cost pretty near nothing for people to live there. If one takes over the low-cost housing and renovates it up to CMHC standards, it costs maybe $60,000 to upgrade, insulate, install new windows and so on. It raises the price. That is what is happening in our communities right now, and it is creating a very difficult situation.
How should the system change? The leases may be a longer term, but the combined costs of mortgage and home maintenance make the situation very difficult. I suggest that they be given a little more assistance with maintenance, for example.
Previously, the housing association did all the maintenance. It cost nothing for the owner. Now, an access home is your property. If you want to call somebody because your furnace went out and you do not know what is wrong, you are charged for the maintenance. For the past 25 or 30 years, the government charged nothing for that kind of thing. These policy changes are making things very difficult for us in the communities. It is said that people today cannot afford to have a house in the Arctic. That is my concern, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps you covered this earlier in your presentation but, unfortunately, I had to be at another committee, so stop me if you have already covered this. The issue of housing is a very serious issue for the aboriginal peoples. Certainly, the housing is not adequate in many cases and deplorable in others. However, we are studying aboriginal self-government. Are you basing the claims in your report on your right to self-government or on the historical fact that the government entered into housing arrangements and gave assurances, and you therefore wish that the government would live up to them?
Mr. Buffalo: That is a difficult question. I believe that the National Aboriginal Housing Association has the capacity to control aboriginal housing by our institutions, by our governments. This is one of the reasons why we are at this forum, at this committee, to try to outline how we believe urban housing would fit into that government structure. We feel that we have the capability. A number of organizations across Canada are in various stages of sophistication in that respect.
Senator Andreychuk: I am not questioning your capability. We are studying self-government and how the Canadian government should approach resolution of this issue by identifying models and examples that might be workable for aboriginal people and for the rest of Canadian society. I was confused in your brief as to where you feel you get your authority. Is it because historically the government set up an arrangement through CMHC and, therefore, you think they have started something, they are committed to it, and therefore they should follow through with their obligation? It would seem to me that that was created by the Canadian government at the point they started on this venture. In some other parts of your brief, you assert that your right to housing is based on the fact of your legitimacy through section 35 or your aboriginal rights elsewhere. Which are you relying on?
Mr. Buffalo: The latter one. It is argued that the federal government started the process of urban housing. Our opinion is that we, through our leadership, forced the government to acknowledge its responsibility on this issue and, as a result, the government initiated a policy to acknowledge the concerns voiced by aboriginal leaders in the early 1970s, and earlier, about the adequate housing issue.
We always have had that right as aboriginal people to adequate and affordable shelter. We are saying that we want our own institutions, our own people and our own governments to be able to continue to control that right. It does not necessarily mean that it is going to be NAHA; it could be another organization. It could be First Nations, Métis or Inuit. The key thing is that the aboriginal control must be there in order for the program to be effective. Whether it is the federal, provincial or municipal government that is providing the funding is not the issue. The issue is that we must have affordable housing in our communities, and those communities include off-reserve ones.
Senator Andreychuk: If we approach it from the self-government issue, should the Canadian government be encouraged therefore to negotiate with those aboriginal leaders who speak for their society, or do they go to other groupings of aboriginals who seem to need the rights? Who speaks for the aboriginal people in the urban area, or who should speak for them in order to solve this issue? Do we go back to the land claims? Do we go back to the original claims and devise mechanisms for the government with the aboriginal leaders to ensure that there is adequate housing, or do we work with these new creations like the housing corporation that you represent to provide adequate housing? What is the ultimate goal? What example should we suggest to the Canadian government?
There is no dispute, in my opinion, that you should have adequate housing. That is a given, but who should negotiate getting to that point with the federal government?
Mr. Buffalo: We recognize political leadership and the leadership within our community. We are working at present with the five major organizations across Canada. They speak for us. If it is the Inuit of Canada, we work through their leadership. If it is the Metis nation of Canada, we work through them. If it is the Congress of Aboriginal People, we work through them. If it is the Assembly of First Nations or the Native Women's Association of Canada, we work through them. All five organizations are in very close contact with the National Aboriginal Housing Association. We are not the political organization; they are. We give them the advice, the recommendations, on how we feel our issues should be approached. They take it upon themselves as to how they are going to tackle the issue. We have always maintained that policy. Although we are very political, we are not the political organization for this. We have our leadership.
Senator Andreychuk: That helps me. You are basically saying that we should focus on the basic leadership in the aboriginal community and take this issue into account because housing is so important.
Mr. Buffalo: It transcends the boundaries that the government and other people have made. When we see a native person, we do not ask them if they are Congress, Inuit or Assembly of First Nations. Those boundaries exist, so we acknowledge and recognize them. We work with that reality and try to work with everybody within that. Housing transcends those boundaries.
Senator Andreychuk: Would it be fair to say that you are bringing this housing dilemma to us because the federal delegation of responsibilities to the provinces has exacerbated the problem that you already had?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you. That helps me.
The Chairman: Mr. Buffalo, I believe I understand your presentation. You represent the national housing organization which has its office in Alberta. That organization has responsibility for housing across the country, including the North and Labrador.
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: In your presentation you seemed to be focusing on off-reserve housing, particularly as it relates to those who are leaving reserves and integrating into mainstream society. You told us that the responsibility for housing for those people is being transferred from the federal government to provincial governments. That is the basic thrust of your brief.
My first question relates to those aboriginal people living off-reserve. Do you believe that the Government of Canada is unloading its responsibility too fast and to the wrong governmental body, particularly when self-government is being developed? Are they targeting that responsibility to the wrong body? Will the provinces be sensitivity to the special housing requirements of aboriginal people?
I believe you have indicated that you would rather have your own people, within their own governing structure, taking over that responsibility to meet the needs of their people. Is that correct?
Mr. Buffalo: That is correct.
The Chairman: I have a slight problem, however, when you link the right to be serviced, the right to be housed, the right to be clothed, and the right to have food and things of that nature. You are linking all of those to your inherent right to self-government. You believe that all of those issues are the responsibility of the future governing institutions. Are you saying that the reason you are connecting all of these things to the inherent right to self-government is because, only through that avenue will the sensitivity of these issues be recognized?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: My second question deals with those living on reserves. Am I correct that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is still being used as an agent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to fulfil the responsibility of providing on-reserve housing?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: Are you aware that the Inuit no longer fall into that category?
Mr. Buffalo: No, I am not.
The Chairman: The Government of Canada adjusted their policy to include only on-reserve housing. Although there had been an explicit legal commitment by the Government of Canada, a policy was formulated to unload that responsibility to the provinces. The Province of Quebec objected to that, stating that they could not do that because the Government of Canada had a legal obligation to continue to provide services to those people who were parties to the original agreement.
As you know, the need for housing is creating major problems.
I want to get back to the issue of affordable housing. You seem to be saying that, unless aboriginal people fully participate and have direct input into their own future, you feel that affordable housing will never be realized. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: Do I understand you to say that, for that reason, this subject should form a part of the overall study that will be conducted by the Senate in order to try to come up with some acceptable suggestions?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, and we have suggestions and models for your consideration.
The Chairman: You also seem to be drawing on the fundamental human rights argument.
What do you want us, as a committee, to do right now? Do you feel this is an urgent matter, or is it something that can be dealt with at the end of the day when the committee concludes its report? Is this matter so important that it must be considered immediately?
Mr. Buffalo: My personal feeling is that we are in a crisis and I need your assistance immediately. They call it "devolution"; we call it "abandonment." We feel that we need your intervention, in whatever way that you can, to urge the government to at least pause and consider our concerns. Our leadership have written letters to the minister. They have written letters to the government. So far, their requests continue to fall on deaf ears.
We are asking the Senate, through the protocol that exists between your committee and the government, to ask if there is any possibility of putting the brakes on this transfer. If that is not possible, then perhaps we are in the wrong forum.
The Chairman: I cannot answer give you a positive or a negative answer to your question at this point. We can only say to you that we will explore all possible avenues in that regard.
You mentioned in answer to Senator Johnson that four provinces have not signed the deal at this point, but I would suggest that the others already have a process in place now to provide services.
Mr. Buffalo: Saskatchewan was the first province to agree to this. Their provincial organization has approached our national organization, telling us that they are experiencing some problems since the transfer took place. We are already a year or so down the road. The eastern provinces, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and the others, signed on in that same time frame. Urban organizations from those provinces are coming to us -- albeit on an indirect or informal basis because they do not want to get into trouble with their funding agencies -- and telling us that they are experiencing problems as a result of the transfer.
We have not yet heard from the Yukon or other areas of the North. Those agreements only became effective in about May or June. We have had contact with some groups in Yukon, the Grey Mountain Society and others, who have indicated that there are problems, but we have not researched that yet. We have not yet heard from anyone in Labrador and Newfoundland.
The Chairman: Would I be correct in assuming that, as long as you are a participant in reaching an agreement about what is acceptable to the aboriginal people, and that includes meeting their sensitivity requirements, you do not really care whether it is federal money or provincial money? Would I be correct in saying that your main concern is that it must be done properly?
Before you answer, allow me to take it a step further. Would you accept the notion of a unified system? Suppose a transfer agreement could be worked out for a period of, say, five years with a certain amount coming from the federal government and a certain amount coming from the provinces, but it would be unified in the sense of being administered as one unit. Perhaps the housing authorities would have to be put in place province by province. Would that be acceptable to you if that eventually become a part of self-government?
Mr. Buffalo: The formal response to that is no, it is not acceptable.
The Chairman: Why?
Mr. Buffalo: At the moment, we are focussing on the issue of halting the transfer from the federal government to the provincial governments. My personal viewpoint, and being the president, is that we can live with that. It is a problem that I believe can be worked out, and I think it is a solution that we may end up accepting down the road.
The Chairman: However, you want to negotiate that concept to see what it means to you?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: I understand.
Senator Mahovlich: Pardon my ignorance. I am a new member of this committee. Is there a chief who speaks for all the aboriginal peoples?
Mr. Buffalo: I represent all the aboriginal peoples through my leadership, but there are a number of other chiefs.
Senator Mahovlich: Either you represent all aboriginal peoples or you do not. This is how problems arise. If we start dealing with each province, one province will not agree to the same terms as another province. If we are to do this properly, we must find one leader who can speak for all aboriginal peoples. We must satisfy all aboriginal groups, and all of them must be represented when we make decisions about a basic need such as housing.
Mr. Buffalo: This is why I am trying to present the issue is a non-political way. For example, if I ask Phil Fontaine, the national chief, to work on this issue, the others will say that he only represents the interests of the on-reserve people. If I ask Gerald Morin from the Métis to take part, it might be said that he is working on behalf of the Métis people. You have to remove away the borders. When I am at their offices talking about housing for their people, such as for the Native Women's Association, it does not matter if I am there as a Métis or an Inuit or whatever, I am there representing housing which affects their people. That is why I have been able to work with them successfully on this issue. If that were not so, we would not be able to work together on this issue.
I have the backing of all the five major organizations in this country to work on housing. When anything has to be done formally, then I have to negotiate with each one of these five groups. The provincial governments cannot be represented by only one premier because there are 10 premiers. The territorial leaders also have to be consulted. There is a consensus that we have five leaders, 10 provinces, as well as representatives of the territories.
Senator Mahovlich: As I understand it, the Cree, for example, are spread right across the country.
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, in seven provinces.
Senator Mahovlich: Surely we cannot have one Cree family in Saskatchewan getting a certain type of a house and a Cree in Ontario getting half the size of that house. You will always run into those problems if you do not negotiate as one unit. We should be dealing with someone who has the authority of the five organizations. Do you understand what I mean?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: One of our colleagues will be conducting an in-depth study of housing problems throughout Canada. I believe she has already spoken to you.
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, through my staff.
The Chairman: I guess our interest is related to governance, and not the housing problem per se. That is another issue that will be dealt with separately.
As chairman of this committee, I can report to my colleagues only about the fact that you want the Government of Canada to put a stop to this transfer. We will have to isolate that issue from those related to the housing problems. You seem to be implying that the Government of Canada is moving too fast and that they should wait a little bit longer before they make that transfer to the provinces.
Mr. Buffalo: The four provinces mentioned cover the majority of the population in any event. It is not a major issue.
Senator Adams: Do you have someone in the community who gives you some kind of a report on the housing need in the community, even on-reserve? I think we do in my community. Usually we have a report on the percentage of units built every year in the community. Are you familiar with that type of reporting? Do you have an annual report from the communities which tells you how much of a shortage there is in every community and what they need?
Are you concerned about the allocation of money for housing if the responsibility is transferred to the provincial governments?
I do not know how many reserve areas there are in Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. However, there must be a certain number of housing units required every year.
You mentioned Article 23 in your brief. Is Article 23 incorporated into any agreement between CMHC and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? If so, what does that mean for your housing policy?
Mr. Buffalo: I was referring to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration on Indigenous Rights.
Senator Adams: That has nothing to do with housing. I misunderstood you.
Does your organization ascertain the percentage of units built every year and the need for housing in various communities?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
Senator Adams: Is CMHC keeping up with the need or can you only hope to meet a percentage of that need?
Mr. Buffalo: The percentage would change, would be altered, in the transfer. In the current formula under the federal government, there are built-in factors that cover a number of things in the agreement between the housing provider and the CMHC. When a transfer occurs, you require a different operating agreement between the province and the housing provider, and the amount becomes less. That means you cannot do as much. Shifting from one piece of legislation to the next is very problematic. However, the administration fee will be less.
What we receive under the new agreement will probably be a lot less than what we receive under the federal agreement. The housing situation, including maintenance, will suffer. I can provide more specific information to the committee.
Senator Adams: Do you know the exact amount transferred from the federal government to the provincial governments before it is allocated to you? Do you have access to that information?
Mr. Buffalo: We have an idea of how much is involved. I believe, in theory, we have better access to it under the existing regime. When it shifts to the provinces, it will be a whole new ball game.
Senator Adams: My concern is that the provinces may be tempted to allocate that transfer payment to something other than housing.
Senator Johnson: You are probably well aware that my province of Manitoba had one of the first on-site, off-reserve urban housing projects. I believe we started the first project in Manitoba in 1970.
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, it was the first.
The Chairman: People are saying that this off-loading process is part of the overall plan for eventual self-government. In other words, the federal government is getting out of these areas of jurisdiction and the provinces are increasingly taking them on, and eventually the jurisdiction will be transferred to municipalities, communities, and eventually yourselves. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Buffalo: In theory the transition works well. Our major concern is that we be involved in that process. We are not being involved right now. It is happening without us. We are looking through the window from the outside and seeing it happen to us. You say that it will eventually devolve down to the aboriginal people, but we want to be involved right from the start, so we can express our ideas and our concerns during the process. That is not happening now.
Senator Johnson: Is what I am being told is happening actually happening? Do you not feel you are a part of the process at all?
Mr. Buffalo: A number of organizations in Manitoba have told us that they want to voice their concern in some forum. It is happening at the federal and provincial government levels, but there has been no consultation with our groups.
Senator Johnson: You have certainly clarified many issues which obliquely relate to self-government which is the subject of our study. Do you have one last word to say to us as we continue our deliberations over the next year?
Mr. Buffalo: The last comment I want to make is that I appreciate the time that you have given me this evening to make this presentation and to view the video that was made by one of our organizations. It is a very moving presentation. I thank you for your leadership in this issue and in others.
My hope and my dream is that aboriginal people will control their own destiny. One small part of it is for us to control where we live, and that relates directly to housing, My concern is that we take care of those who have chosen to go and live in urban communities.
Senator Johnson: We certainly share your concern, your dreams and your hopes. We hope that our work will contribute to it.
The Chairman: In the executive summary of your brief, at the bottom of the second page it states: "Aboriginal Control: An alternative." You mentioned an annual meeting held in Ottawa in April, 1998. Was that an annual meeting of your organization?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: NAHA members passed a resolution. Has the government in any way, shape, or form acknowledged that resolution?
Mr. Buffalo: The minister and the bureaucracy have received a copies of the resolution.
The Chairman: Can we obtain that resolution at some point? Could you mail it to us?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes.
The Chairman: If you receive a response, I would appreciate it if you would forward that to us also.
Mr. Buffalo: I have a five-page response from the government.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes our hearings for this evening.
The committee adjourned.