Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of November 29, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:45 a.m. for clause by clause study of Bill S-220, an Act respecting a National Blood Donor Week, to examine and report on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities, and to examine and report on the multiple factors and conditions that contribute to the health of Canada's population, known collectively as the social determinants of health.
The Honourable Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Today, we will be examining poverty, homelessness and housing.
[English]
Today, we will look at Aboriginal off-reserve housing.
Prior to that item, we have one other matter to address. On Tuesday, the Senate referred to this committee, Bill S- 220, an act respecting a national blood donor week. This bill was before us previously. It is only here because of the proroguing situation. We had a hearing on December 14, 2006. Our witnesses were Steve Harding, Executive Director of Marketing and Communications from the Canadian Blood Services and André Roch, Public Affairs and Marketing, Héma-Québec. Then the committee proceeded to the clause-by-clause consideration and it passed without amendment. That summary brings us to today.
Given the previous processing of this bill, I propose that we proceed clause by clause. We have consulted with various members, including Senator Cochrane, who is the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. Do we have general agreement on that proposal?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I proceed with clause-by-clause consideration now?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title, preamble and clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed I report this bill without amendment at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Munson: Is the Senate meeting this afternoon?
The Chair: Yes. I will report the bill this afternoon.
Our committee has two subcommittees: One deals with population health, which met yesterday, and the other deals with the major challenges facing our cities. Since poverty, housing and homelessness are issues common to both subcommittees, we have decided to meet as a full committee. We are doing that now. We are also building upon previous work at the Senate in matters of poverty. The 1971 report headed by Senator Croll comes to mind, as well as the 1997 report by Senator Cohen, Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada.
At the same time, our study complements work by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. That committee is chaired by our colleague, Senator Fairbairn, who, at the request of Senator Segal, is dealing with the issue of rural poverty.
Today, we focus on Aboriginal off-reserve housing. Almost half the Aboriginal population lives in urban areas and almost 20 per cent of that population lives in the following five cities: Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. The current poverty rate amongst urban Aboriginals is 21 per cent. However, if we look at the statistics in the report from staff, there is a much higher incidence of poverty and homelessness amongst our Aboriginal population than amongst the population as a whole.
To help guide us through this current circumstance, we have four panellists, each of whom have been asked to provide opening comments of five to seven minutes. We have David Seymour, President of the National Aboriginal Housing Association, which represents off-reserve Aboriginal housing providers in urban centres, towns and in the North. Lynda Brown is the President of the Inuit Non-Profit Housing Corporation. This group provides affordable, subsidized housing for Inuit living in Ottawa. Patrick Augustine is from the Native Council of Prince Edward Island. In 1974, the P.E.I. native council founded Nanegkam Housing Corporation, a non-profit housing corporation that manages seven single dwellings in Summerside and 79 units in Charlottetown. Finally, we have Lawrence Poirier, Manager of Kinew Housing. It was incorporated in 1970 under the sponsorship of Winnipeg's Indian and Metis Friendship Centre. Kinew Housing is Canada's oldest Aboriginal non-profit housing corporation.
Welcome, all of you.
David Seymour, President, National Aboriginal Housing Association: We have provided to your clerk a written presentation. I do not know if it was circulated. Let me walk you through the highlights.
The National Aboriginal Housing Association is an association of housing providers across Canada. We have representatives in almost every province, except P.E.I. I am glad P.E.I. is present here. We represent the needs of over 110 organizations. I want to make it clear that we represent the needs of those people.
First, I would like to address the issue of needs. In your opening remarks, Mr. Chair, you spoke to the numbers. The numbers have been growing significantly since 1994 particularly, with the termination of the federal involvement in the urban Native housing programs. I refer to involvement in growth, distinguished from the $2 billion to support the ongoing units built between 1984 and 1994.
We have delivered here a package. In that package is a study we conducted in 2004. We realized that the current annual need is about 2,200 units, based upon the Census Canada figures of 2001. We are in the process of re-doing that study using currently available data from 2006. We feel that there should be a greater demand for units.
We brought to your attention where the involvement of government comes from to ensure that you have the impetus to act. We believe in the right to housing. We believe that right is not, per se, inside a treaty but rather inside the Government of Canada; our declaration in the international forum.
I have included a notation that we made that position clear in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1994 to 1996. The report is published. We have included a copy of chapter 4 of that report in the package we brought here. Chapter 4 shows that the right to housing comes from the international commitments made by Canada. We continue that position to the extent that we make up our disproportional share of the poor. Currently, we make up about 6 per cent of the overall core need and about 34 per cent of the homeless. I have quoted to you in my opening paper the recent report from numerous sources, such as the report by the Healing Foundation of Canada, Suicide Among Aboriginal People in Canada, published this year. That report states that we make up 34 per cent of the homeless in some of the major cities.
My hope is that we can move on from the study of need to the point where something can be done.
The Government of Canada is being studied. We have included in our package the preliminary report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on how Canada addresses the homeless, and its particular focus on Aboriginal people in Canada. We have included observations in other forums that are important to understand. Given my time is quickly running out, I hope that we will proceed to the discussion of delivery mechanisms.
Our paper covered the need for national coordination in the form of a national strategic plan. Currently, each minister across Canada is commissioned to prepare a ten-year strategic plan. We have cited Bill C-382, a private member's bill currently in the House. If adopted, the bill would mandate a conference in 180 days to develop such a plan.
We hope that you will recognize that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada constitute a unique need — and therefore a distinct situation — which needs to have targeted processes to ensure that delivery is not lost in the translation from resources to housing. We wish to revive legislation that was before the House to ensure that translation happens. We need support to continue the work we have done to date.
Currently, there is a need to support the National Aboriginal Housing Association, NAHA, the collection of associate members, to ensure that we can continue to bring people together for networking. We need support to conduct research into better and more creative ways to translate the ability to best needs, best practices and best abilities; and to monitor whether something is happening and what is needed. We need a dynamic process of consultation that involves all levels of government.
The recognition of the Aboriginal right to govern their own affairs is an evolving process. Both on-reserve and off- reserve, that recognition takes the form of self-determination. We need support for that right.
The Aboriginal Housing Management Association in B.C. is a collection of the organizations in B.C. that come together to work with the province to ensure the involvement and participation of the province in the strategic delivery of housing. In terms of the national association, we need the same. We need it in every province. We need sufficient funding to deliver the kinds of practices we support.
We wish to participate in the discussion of delivery mechanisms. I hope we have an open session on that subject.
The Chair: Let me emphasize that we will continue for a couple more hours, so you have a lot of time to respond to questions and comments. I ask only that you keep the opening comments to five to seven minutes.
Mr. Seymour: I want to spend time then to tell you what we have witnessed here and what our concerns are. While the federal government has declared that housing is not part of its jurisdiction and it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, it is the responsibility of the federal government to house all its citizens. When asked at the international forums — and I am looking for the quote — our ambassador said that the federal government would not hide behind the constitutional jurisdiction matter and would provide for the needs of the poor.
The consequence is that we feel the federal government has a role, and that role is threefold. First, its role is to coordinate the effort to ensure that it is targeted strategically.
Second, its role is to support the mechanisms, which is to undertake joint funding with the provinces. What happened to the days when we used to do fund 75 per cent, 25 per cent? Where did that funding formula go wrong? The issue of housing is everyone's issue, from municipal to provincial to federal governments, so a second role is to participate financially in that issue.
Yes, the federal government has provided $300 million for the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust and we are monitoring whether that organization builds any unit. Currently, it has not built a unit, but there are plans in certain regions to cause that to happen. I want to talk about that, under the guise of delivery mechanisms and whether that mechanism is an appropriate one. Do they dump money and run away? We will see how that approach unfolds.
The third role that the federal government must play in this exercise is to stand up for housing as a right. We have signed on to that right in the international community. Why do we not take a look at that private member's bill and see whether they can institutionalize that right in a fashion that is appropriate for Canada — so that we will not be charged with those criticisms that we hear from the Iranians and the international community?
The Chair: Thank you very much. As I said a moment ago, you will have a chance to express your views further as we go into the dialogue.
Lynda Brown, President, Inuit Non-Profit Housing Corporation: The Inuit Non-Profit Housing Corporation is based in Ottawa, and I would like to preface my remarks by explaining a bit about the corporation.
The Inuit Non-Profit Housing Corporation was originally started in Yellowknife in 1975 and dealt with affordable housing in the North. In the early 1980s, it was realized that the population was moving south for schooling, housing, education, health and many different reasons. The Inuit population was growing down south, so the corporation needed to change its focus. As a result, part of the corporation divested and decided to open housing in the Ottawa area.
Currently, we have 63 units scattered over 25 properties in Ottawa. We have a few units left in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, bringing our total portfolio to 79 housing units. To my knowledge, we are the only non- profit private provider for Inuit in urban settings.
We have a three-member staff — an executive director, a housing assistant and a receptionist — and we have a seven-member board, which is comprised of Inuit-descent members. I am the president, Ovilu Goo-Doyle is our vice- president and Heidi Langille is our secretary-treasurer.
The Urban Native Housing Program, which our program is funded by, was established in the 1970s to assist urban native sponsors that were supported by memberships of Aboriginal peoples and committed to meeting housing needs. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation provides subsidy assistance under the National Housing Act, as well as direct mortgage financing to support the goal of acquiring rental accommodation for low and moderate income Aboriginal people.
Mortgages were calculated over a 35-year period; rents were and are established at roughly 25 per cent of income. The actual market rent is set by our funding agents each year. For example, if the market rent of a unit is $1,000 per month and the 25 per cent of a tenant's income equals $350, the subsidy received for that unit is $650. In general, the subsidy received by urban native housing groups is equal to the difference between acceptable annual operating costs and annual projected revenues.
Unfortunately, the housing delivery portion of this worthwhile program is no longer in force. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has divested management of the still-active subsidy portion to the provinces. In the case of Ontario, the management has been further downloaded to the municipalities, who are now our program managers.
The subsidies will be available only to the end of the 35-year period. At that time, the operating agreements have a sunset clause and the urban native groups are expected to manage on their own without subsidies.
Some of these groups are rapidly approaching that period and, in many instances, their mortgages will not be paid off. Unless revenue matches operating costs, a number of current urban native housing providers will be forced to raise rents, sell off properties or fail, further lessening the availability of much-needed subsidized Aboriginal housing. Our funders to date have refused to discuss or resolve this looming dilemma.
Let me present a few facts about Inuit-specific housing in the southern parts of Canada in the 10 provinces. Although First Nations groups have had useful on-reserve housing programs, there have been no effective initiatives specific to Inuit in over 20 years. The current subsidy program is slowing the sunset provision. Homelessness among Inuit and other Aboriginal people is more acute than for any other segment of the population.
Our current program managers, the City of Ottawa, have no comprehension of, and make no attempt to understand or acknowledge, the cultural differences that set the housing needs of the urban Inuit apart from mainstream society. No federal or provincial government body is realistically addressing what is a crisis for Inuit and other Aboriginals in this country.
The recent Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable held by the federal government was an ongoing dialogue but did not tackle the urgent need for the purchase or construction of new affordable housing.
What is essential is a clear commitment by the federal government to address the fact that Inuit peoples do not have the same level of access to urban housing specific to their needs as other indigenous groups. This access can be achieved readily by reviving the Urban Native Housing Program in its entirety and by revising the downloading over the last several years of the administration segment to the provinces. Instead of walking away from their obligation, as has occurred, the federal government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, can and should revitalize what was an excellent vehicle for providing affordable housing for native peoples.
Until this revitalization happens, the lack of Inuit-specific housing in urban areas will result in more homelessness, hardship and crisis. As well, this increase in homelessness will intensify the dependence of Inuit on urban social order and in this environment, further the deterioration of their culture and traditions.
Patrick Augustine, Native Council of Prince Edward Island, Nanegkam Housing Corporation: [Mr. Augustine spoke in his native language.]
Good morning. My family's name is Alguimo and my Indian registry name is Patrick Augustine.
My paternal grandmother was born in Epekwitk, in a traditional Mi'Kmaq area of Prince Edward Island and Northern Nova Scotia in the Pictou region. I will speak today only about Epekwitk. In 1898, my grandmother was born in a wigwam in the Wellington area. She lived throughout P.E.I. on Lennox Island, and in Scotchfort, Vernon River and Rocky Point. She also lived in the eastern part of New Brunswick in the Moncton area and Big Cove. She also lived in Northern Maine. She lived to be 100 years and six months old. She lived off the land, made baskets, picked potatoes, dove for oysters in Malpeque Bay until she was in her 80s and chopped her own firewood. During her 100 years of life, many changes happened. In the journals of Judge Aubin Arsenault at the archives in P.E.I., we can read about a 1940s centralization scheme to move all the Mi'kmaq people to the Lennox Island Reserve so that they were contained on the island. Some writings describe the conditions seen on Rocky Point in the early 1940s, where people were living in shacks covered with tar paper. Some of the children he encountered then are in their 60s and 70s today. It is in their memory of how they used to live.
They did not receive any assistance in those days. They had no beds and no blankets, the children were sick and so they were encouraged to relocate to Lennox Island. More than 1300 people reside in P.E.I. today who are not necessarily Mi'kmaq or First Nations people. We have Mohawk, Cree, Ojibwa and Saulteaux. As well, some Metis people ascribe to the Red River and there are other Metis, as well. In the Charlottetown area, more than 700 people live in the agglomeration. There are four reserves with a little more than 400 people and another 100 living in the city of Summerside. The rest of the people are in rural areas.
Grandmother's House, a women's shelter, falls under the Native Council of Prince Edward Island. We came close to closing the facility but an injection of funds by the provincial government has allowed us to keep the facility open. We also had a men's shelter known as Nitapk House but due to lack of funding we had to close it.
In reserve housing, 94 units are on Lennox Island, 31 in Scotchfort, 14 on Rocky Point and 8 in Morell. The off- reserve units total about 56, most of which are three-bedroom units located in Charlottetown. We also have a large number of two-bedroom units. We recently performed a housing needs assessment but the response was not what we had anticipated. Out of 75 surveys, only 24 were completed and returned to us so we cannot really grasp an accurate picture from that survey.
Not too long ago, we consulted with off-reserve Aboriginal people throughout P.E.I. on matrimonial real property. An elder mentioned that she was living off-reserve because when her marriage broke down, she had to leave her home on the reserve.
My written submission makes brief mention of urban Aboriginal issues that were presented to an advisory committee of cities and communities in 2004. In a document entitled, Aboriginal Mobility and Migration within Urban Canada: Outcomes, Factors and Implications, authors M. J. Norris and Stewart Clatworthy discuss the "push and pull'' that is occurring: What is pushing people from the reserve and pulling them back to the reserve? What is pushing people to urban areas and pulling them back? Some of the reasons are similar to the urban situation in Epekwitk.
The Chairman: Thank you for your outline of what is happening in P.E.I. in that respect. Some of your personal stories are most interesting.
Lawrence Poirier, Manager, Kinew Housing: Canada is a country without a social housing policy for low income Aboriginal families. Kinew Housing was established in 1970 to provide homes for low income Aboriginal families. It was founded by a small group of concerned people who saw a problem and tried to deal with it. The group first bought houses and rented them out at cost but quickly realized that this approach would not be sustainable for long.
The group worked to establish an urban Native housing program. This program was to be known later as the "Kinew Experiment.'' Older houses in the older areas of Winnipeg were purchased and renovated using local Aboriginal employees, and training programs were established. Over the years, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation discouraged the use of these training programs. They were "in the business of housing, not employment.'' There were mortgages on these homes, and they had an operating agreement with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Kinew continued to purchase homes, and renovate and provide homes to low-income Aboriginal tenants with rent geared to income. Subsidies were available to bridge the difference between what the tenant could afford and the cost of providing the home. Kinew has 397 homes in their portfolio. Most of these homes are single family residences spread throughout the city of Winnipeg, but mostly in and around the centre of the city.
However, 1993 marked the end of the Urban Native Housing Program and social housing in Canada. After several years of no new homes, we worked towards providing new houses and were finally able to build 10 new homes in 2006 and 10 in 2007. These homes were built using funds from the Affordable Housing Initiative, City of Winnipeg, Urban Aboriginal Strategy and mortgages from the Assiniboine Credit Union.
The Government of Manitoba has provided rent supplement for the tenants in these new homes for a period of 15 years. The City of Winnipeg is ahead of most cities when it comes to assisting with housing. The city has provided the land for $1 that these houses have been built on, and, when possible, smaller grants have been made available to put up fencing or provide landscaping or site preparation. An important component of this project is the funds that have been set aside in a trust. These funds would be used only if the project goes into deficit. This trust is called the Capital Trust Fund. Without this fund, Kinew Housing would not have undertaken to build these homes. This housing was as close to subsidized housing as we could provide; it is still not true subsidized housing.
One of the biggest problems that Kinew Housing faces with the existing portfolio is that when the mortgages are paid, the operating agreement also ends. No subsidy will be available when the operating agreements end. The end of operating agreements and subsidies for tenants in existing Aboriginal housing is coming. The end of the subsidies will create the next housing crisis.
The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association stated in a report that "Governments plan to reduce spending on social housing by almost $60 billion over the next 30 years. Almost $32 billion will be withdrawn by the Government of Canada, the remainder by the provinces and the territories.''
It also said that "programs designed to house people with the lowest incomes, including supportive housing and the various Aboriginal housing programs, will not be viable unless some form of subsidy is extended to them after current agreements expire.''
Rents for homes with expired agreements will be raised to economic or slightly above economic rents. This rent will still be lower than existing market rents. Existing tenants will no longer be able to afford to pay economic rents, as these families pay 25 per cent of their income or receive social assistance, which is far below the operating costs of these homes. Eventually, we could be forced to rent to non-Aboriginal families that can afford the economic rents.
One important component of Aboriginal housing is the provision of a tenant counsellor. This person works with the families, helping them through the many problems they face. We will lose this position, and it will be missed dearly in our many organizations. The uniqueness of the Urban Native Housing Program definitely will be jeopardized.
We will replace these tenants with those able to afford the economic rent. Where will these displaced tenants go? We currently have close to 900 applications on file, and these families are looking for subsidized housing.
Perhaps we should build family shelters where each day, around four o'clock, people line up in the hopes that they will end up with a place for the night. Of course, no one wants this situation.
As we move forward to other initiatives, we have the Affordable Housing Trust. In Manitoba, the parameters of the Affordable Housing Trust for off-reserve Aboriginal families have not yet been established, and it is unclear as to when we will have those parameters and what they might be. As a one-time project funding, it will only begin to address some of the problems. There is no long-term funding for subsidized housing in this initiative.
Manitoba has a large Aboriginal population, and it is growing at a fast pace. The province expects 11,000 new immigrant families and hopes that this number will increase by 1,000 over the next nine years. These families will also compete for the ever decreasing number of homes available. The shortage of housing is already unacceptable but, instead of creating new housing, we will reduce it as the operating agreements come to an end.
Housing stabilizes families. If they are constantly on the move for decent housing, the children are moved from school to school and their education is affected with each move. When families are in decent housing, they can concentrate on the other areas of their lives, such as education and employment.
The homeless perception is distorted by the media. Our homeless are not only found on the streets but also they also share accommodation with other families and friends. The construction of shelters helps a small number of people, but a shelter is not a home. Families do not come to Kinew Housing looking for shelter, they need housing. Kinew currently has close to 900 families on a waiting list.
Other Aboriginal housing groups are located in Winnipeg. Many are much smaller and target the needs of families with medical conditions, our elders, and families in transition from various treatments back to the community. These groups also report large numbers of people on their waiting lists.
Much of the housing in Winnipeg has been provided for families that can "afford,'' but little has been provided for the low-income families. There is no shortage of funds. Housing must be made a spending priority. Consider the cost of doing nothing.
The Chair: Ms. Brown, you said in your statement that the urban native housing program that was cancelled and the downloading that followed was an excellent vehicle for providing affordable housing for native peoples, and you think it should be re-established. Do the rest of you think this model is a good one to follow.
This quesiton is in three parts. From what I have heard from at least two of you, I take it that the Aboriginal Housing Trust established in 2006 is not doing the job. I am not clear if the money is not flowing to you. The money was supposed to go, as I understand it, to the provinces and the territories. Has there been much dialogue? Is much happening in that regard with respect to the Aboriginal housing trust?
The third question I have for you is on this issue that most of you raised of the expiring operating agreements, many of them tied to 35-year mortgages which ending soon. Ms. Brown, you said that no one is engaging in dialogue so far amongst the authorities who have responsibility. There is nothing from the funders to date. You must be talking about this a bit and about what some of the options are. We do not want to see this housing go out of existence for the people that need it. Are you developing strategies or thoughts on what you might be able to do while you wait for these funders to say something to you?
Who wants to start?
Mr. Seymour: I will go for it.
First, in the 10 years that the Urban Native Housing Program was in existence, the 110 existing housing organizations developed across Canada. We own and manage 11,000 units. I think it was a fundamental Canadian thing to do. It became expensive and was cut at a time, as we were told — and let me take it only from my perspective — because the federal government deficit was $42 billion. Something needed to be cut, and it was future growth. It was a case of, let us back off until we put our house in order. As a consequence, the program died. It was subsequently destroyed by the argument that the program was not in federal jurisdiction and it was truly a provincial responsibility. As a consequence, it never came back.
The Liberal government of the day, in 1994, said they would bring back that program, if elected. When they were elected, they realized the deficit was too great and they could not bring it back. Then they went out of favour and, the next thing we know, we are into that jurisdictional argument.
The vehicle is a positive one and, slightly modified, it would be an excellent vehicle to continue with and proceed. One of the critical positive things about this vehicle is that it had best-buy elements in it, recognition of Aboriginal delivery mechanisms, transfers of titles and deep subsidy. Deep subsidy is not simply a subsidy based upon some formula but, rather, based upon economics. "Deep subsidy,'' by definition, was to ensure that the program was viable at all times. As a consequence, we are here.
The Chair: And the housing trust, by comparison?
Mr. Seymour: By comparison, the housing trust is a one-time deal and it is up to the provinces.
Allow me to run through the provinces. As a national organization, we tried to monitor this trust as best we could.
In B.C, they did it by way of an invitation or an expression of interest. They took the whole of their sum and put it out to tender and drew in proposals. They received a 5:1 ratio of responses. In other words, five times as many dollars were applied for as was in the fund. They eventually weaned down the applications to 10 or 12 organizations, for a total of 192 units that are currently being processed to go into the ground, jumping the new hurdles.
Since those days of the 1980s, we are in an environmentally sensitive world. Therefore, there are things like certification in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEEDS. This new environmental standard ensures that houses are properly sealed so they do not have leaky condos and all kinds of environmental problems with the new housing.
Alberta, by contrast, divided their money into three one-year pieces and uses it for various sources, such as renovations. However, we have not seen any housing and they have not consulted with the Aboriginal community.
Saskatchewan has consulted with the Aboriginal community and has divided the money into three pots: a segment for the Metis on a population basis; a piece for the treaty Indians, as they call themselves, who are in the non-reserve areas; and a piece for the North. They tend not to make the distinction in the North between treaty and non-treaty people, that is, Metis.
There are three separate delivery mechanisms. Those people use the mechanisms for renovations, for subsidizing their existing portfolios or expanding them, or for trying to deal with the issues that have evolved, as you have heard, out of the expiration agreements.
In Manitoba, they are still consulting. I have not heard of any delivery. Perhaps Mr. Poirier can speak about this situation.
Ontario is currently sitting on its $82 million and has not delivered anything. Ontario has had three or four conversations with a couple of Aboriginal groups but has done little comprehensive consultation or planning of any kind. They have simply maintained the fund.
In Quebec, they are talking to the one Aboriginal organization there, the Waskehegan, and trying to find a delivery mechanism for their share.
New Brunswick is talking but has not done anything specific. They have had a couple of conversations with one organization. There is only one Aboriginal organization in New Brunswick.
Mr. Augustine will explain what they are doing in Prince Edward Island.
In Nova Scotia, there is only one Aboriginal organization that is in a non-reserve community. The organization reports that it has had some general conversations but nothing specific, and there is no method at all.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, there is still only one organization in the North, in Labrador, in the non-reserve community.
On the whole, some people are talking, but little is happening except in B.C., where there is a specific target of units, and they will deliver only 192 units. When we look at the ratio of units to the number of dollars, we need at least five times that amount of money. If the amount provided is to be $300 million, we need $1.5 billion to make a dent. This situation must be dealt with in a way that is more mindful of the economics.
The Chair: Thank you for that overview. Let me turn to the other panellists for comments about either the past program that was cancelled or the operating agreements. I want to hear more about that situation.
Mr. Augustine: In P.E.I., we have had discussions with the former premier's office, Pat Binns. We have more or less indicated how we want to see the trust unfold. At the time, the province said that they would meet with the First Nations as well. We were a bit uncomfortable with that approach because we do not believe that First Nations' jurisdictions extend off reserve and feel it is a misreading of the Corbiere decision. We do not believe that the Corbiere decision gives First Nations jurisdiction off reserve.
When the government changed, we also visited the premier's office again, this time to meet with Robert Ghiz. Because it is a new government, they are only becoming familiar with the file as well, and it seems that the file is not moving.
In relation to rural Aboriginal housing and mortgages, I am familiar with one instance where a mortgage was renegotiated. Nanegkam Housing Corporation owns the urban units, but we do not own the rural units. This particular individual went to the bank and renegotiated the mortgage. The concern is that if there is a default on this renewed mortgage, the unit goes back into the common market.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to comment? Are any strategies being built concerning what you do when the operating agreements expire?
Mr. Poirier: There is only one strategy. If the operating agreements end, we must be able to maintain those units. We need to raise the rents to make them economically viable.
The Chair: That increase will make them unaffordable for a lot of people.
Mr. Poirier: That increase makes them unaffordable for low-income Aboriginal families.
Mr. Seymour: In some instances in Saskatchewan, it has been reported that they have consolidated the units. They take five units and sell them off, and they buy one or two units and use the excess proceeds for operating expenses. If that strategy is adopted, which is like a default strategy, we would see the unit delivery consolidating and collapsing in on itself and the needs rising exponentially after that collapse.
Another strategy has been to look at an issue that has provoked our discussion, and that is, what about supporting home ownership?
In B.C, units were built in a high-growth area, the consequence being that equity is built into them. I will provide an example of a home ownership situation that we explored. We have a project on Vancouver Island that has excess land because the land at the time had the need for a septic field. Because of the infrastructure projects in Canada, the municipality has provided sewers and water to the project and, therefore, the land is not needed. That land is excess land.
Another project that has high density was built in downtown Victoria, which has experienced a huge growth in equity. We would sell the units in downtown Victoria to the occupiers of the units. We could say, "We will give you $150,000 of subsidy by way of a second mortgage and sell you the balance of the unit.'' That is to say, we will give you $100,000 and sell the unit to you for $150,000, which is then affordable. We could hold the subsidy as a second mortgage so they cannot flip it and take the $100,000 out of it. We would then take that $150,000, which would become our equity share to develop the other vacant land. By having another program that follows this program, we could have some advantage from the growth in existing equity in some areas.
In terms of ongoing management, though, the Government of Canada has developed what the Canadian Housing Renewal Association, CHRA, refers to as the Legacy Fund. I think we should adopt it. Once the mortgages expire, the $2 billion that was capped in 1996 that flows from that program is no longer there. The Government of Canada lived with a payment of $2 billion and that $2 billion should accrue to the benefit of Canada as a whole. Therefore, that money should stay in housing, for which it was previously slotted. We advocate, in concert with CHRA, Kinew and others, the need for that Legacy Fund to come back into housing in various forms.
The focus must be on what happens to that fund over time. A curve is like any mortgage curve; it comes down. The difference between the $2 billion and the actual downswing of the mortgage is what the Legacy Fund is all about. We think it should be delivered.
The Chair: Thank you. There are interesting possibilities there.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you all for coming here today. Because I am from Prince Edward Island, naturally I want to ask questions to Mr. Augustine.
The Native Council of Prince Edward Island was formed in 1973. I know that the council is involved in housing, training, employment, programs for youth, and so on. I want to know your budget. Has it increased a great deal since 1973? What is it compared to then?
Mr. Augustine: The budget has remained the same since the 1980s, I think. We receive core funding from the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, OFI, for the executives and executive support. We also have a tripartite agreement since the 1980s. We are looking at economic development initiatives through that agreement.
We used to deliver training and employment, but it was rolled up into one agreement that is delivered by the tribal council. We have more or less lost community control of training and employment and launched a judicial review of that decision. The decision ruled in our favour, but the tribal council is appealing it. The amount of money is not a whole lot, maybe $200,000.
Senator Callbeck: That money comes from the Canadian Heritage Aboriginal Peoples' Program and you also receive funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada, do you?
Mr. Augustine: There is a diabetes initiative. The most we can do with that funding is awareness. We cannot do any type of management with that money.
Senator Callbeck: Your budgets are pretty much the same as back in the 1980s?
Mr. Augustine: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: You are not able to offer as many services as you were back then.
Mr. Augustine: We have evolved into project funding. We submit proposals and receive funding for one or two years. When the project expires, then the temporary staff are let go. Only funding for the executive and the support for the executives is more or less ongoing.
Senator Callbeck: Your non-profit corporation for housing has a lot units and single dwellings, and so on. Is there a long waiting list for people wanting that housing?
Mr. Augustine: Yes, there is somewhat of a waiting list. However, there is a mismatch of available units compared to what is required. An elder who lives alone in a two bedroom unit freezes up that unit — and we are not about to ask that elder to leave — so that when a single parent with children is looking for a unit, those types of units are not available.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned the Grandmother's House. I think I read about it last week in the paper. The provincial government gave $22,000 to the house over the winter. Is that correct?
Mr. Augustine: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: I think the article said that the native council would announce an initiative this week. Has that initiative been announced yet?
Mr. Augustine: I think they are awaiting approval of a program, but I am not sure which one that would be.
Senator Callbeck: The men's shelter was closed in 2006 simply because you could not afford to keep it open. Is there any hope of that opening up again?
Mr. Augustine: We are always optimistic. If a new program arises in the morning, sure enough we will submit a proposal. It will become almost like another project to be funded again.
It becomes a matter of survival for us. For being able to survive hundreds of years and still be here today, I guess we need to be creative in how we pursue funding.
Senator Callbeck: When you closed that shelter, where did those men go?
Mr. Augustine: Some of them went back on the street. Some returned to the reserves. Some faced problems with addictions and, because of addictions, they faced incarceration. Those push-and-pull factors are always there. There is always an urban and rural migration that is almost seasonal. In spring, nice weather comes to Prince Edward Island and everyone moves to Charlottetown. In the fall, when the weather starts getting cold again, people move back to their home communities. There is always movement back and forth.
Senator Munson: We always say that I live in Ontario, but my heart is in the Maritimes.
Housing is a human right. If we do not have a home, we do not have hope. We have seen many statistics about on- reserve suicide rates, but a certain anonymity surrounds those who live off reserves and we do not know a lot about them.
I have worked with the native council before, but they are slipping through the cracks, too. I am curious to know if any statistics have been put together on those who do not have hope, who do not have a home, who live in our cities — well over one million Aboriginal people, maybe more, who have given up hope because they do not have housing, which is a basic human right.
Mr. Seymour: Within the last two months, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation research series published statistics regarding suicide among Aboriginal people in Canada. You can acquire your copy down the street. I had them mail one to me. In my paper, I quoted from page 57 of the report, where they connect the dots between homelessness, lack of hope and suicide.
To go through the book in its entirety is something you should do. We, in the Aboriginal community, understand that connection in our own being. For example, when you get up in the morning, you wash. If you do not have housing, that will not happen. It is as inevitable as night follows day.
People in B.C. and Vancouver are attending the Frank Paul hearings concerning what happened to him with the police: where was the community, where was Canada when Frank Paul was dumped by the police into the alley 100 feet from the detox centre and he froze to death? These stories go on and on.
The cold weather is starting here. We in B.C. have begun strategies that lead to cooperation and understanding; that is everyone's job. Poverty is not something that has been allocated by Parliament and by the founding Fathers of Confederation. We ought to respect that. Poverty is everyone's duty. A single life is important and, therefore, it is part of Canada. As a consequence, we should all come together.
Some things I want to talk about are positive. In B.C., while it is not yet finalized, a memorandum of understanding has been signed by the province, the feds and the leadership council, which respects on-reserve people as well as off- reserve and understands that we need to work together. We all know what a human life is worth.
CMHC wanted to get in on the agreement because it is "housing'' and it is bogged down somewhere on Montreal Street. We must move it along, if it takes only a quick call from the chair to say: Get that out of there and have it signed. We do not need ceremonies; we need to move on the agreement.
Six principles need to be understood in developing a housing response. One is understanding the continuum of housing from homelessness to homeownership. The second is supporting existing housing providers, such as you have in front of you. The third is developing regional associations. Ontario refuses to bring the 42 housing organizations together and form a system; you can push for that. In Manitoba, they are squeezing them. You heard about P.E.I. Provide general support for these associations as well as the national associations.
The fourth is to recognize the changing economic conditions and marketplace. We cannot buy a housing unit in Vancouver anymore for less than $250,000. You can use the statistics that BC Housing has gathered with their Aboriginal housing trust share. When I divide $50.9 million by 192 units, my average unit cost in B.C., regardless of the fact that it is the same all over, is close to $200,000. That cost is not the same in the Prairies, in Manitoba.
Is the allocation of the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust proportional to the economics or is it proportional to the population? During the good years of 1984 to 1994, we received 3 per cent of the allocation under the urban native program as compared to the non-Aboriginal program, but we represented 6 per cent, as was found in the royal commission, so we should have received twice as many units. We would have been twice as far down the road. As a consequence of not receiving our proportional shares of the need — we received proportional shares by population but not by need — the consequence is that we are now behind by about 25,000 units. We must recognize the differences in economic conditions and economic needs.
The fifth point of any program would be to facilitate the involvement of others. We support the development of a national strategy that involves all parties. It is the responsibility of all parties. If housing is a human right, if we are not human, we do not have a right here. If we are human, then we have a right and a responsibility, as they ought to teach in law school. Every person who has a right has a responsibility. As Canadian citizens, we all have a responsibility to do what we can, wherever we are. That responsibility involves the provinces, the cities and the others. We are ready to help. Some of us have been here since the early 1970s and 1980s. Now it is 2007.
The Chair: Do any of the other panellists want to weigh in?
Mr. Seymour: There is one more principle: the dynamics. We need to have a program that dynamically matches the needs. What you heard was the aging of populations and the shifting of demand. The houses do not change. We build a three-bedroom house, but we build it for a mother with two children. The two children grow up and now we have a house with an elder in it. We need to switch that around. We need a dynamic construction process.
Ms. Brown: You were asking about statistics. As Inuit, we have three problems in obtaining accurate numbers. One is that usually our numbers are not separated from other First Nations groups so it is hard to determine what percentage is Inuit. As was mentioned before, we also have hidden homelessness. Many families are living with extended family members or even community members, people who come from the same community. We have a three- bedroom house with two or three families living there. It is hard to gauge homelessness from that situation. Also, our population is fluid. Again, it was mentioned before, but many people who move to Ottawa might be here for three or four months and move on to another city or go back home for whatever reason. It is hard to keep track of numbers, but we try our best.
Senator Munson: To be specific for a moment, the Aboriginal population in urban areas has at least doubled over the last 20 years. That increase means many young adults and children are living in the core houses and they have needs. What measures should be put in place for housing programs for Aboriginal people living in urban areas to meet the special needs of these families with young children? I want to go more into the specifics. I understand the six principles.
Mr. Seymour: In understanding the continuum from homelessness to homeownership, we find that the federal and provincial governments attack the continuum in different places. People fall into the cracks. The example is the single mother. Where does she go? We need to understand that continuum from shelters to second-stage shelters to family homeowners and what moves people through the continuum. We feel that one way to obtain more advantage out of the existing stock is to deal with the far end and develop programs on homeownership. The National Aboriginal Housing Association could use your support to fund a study on homeownership so that it moves in that way, freeing up units that would serve people coming out of the shelters. The problem is they are stuck in the shelter. Where do they go after a shelter?
Senator Munson: Should the federal government response be different than responding to other groups with needs? In other words, how should the federal response to the Aboriginal housing need differ from the federal response to housing needs for other groups? Can you give examples?
Mr. Seymour: Our right is based upon our international right, which is a human right equal to everyone's right, and the only reason to target Aboriginal people in special conditions is that we are misrepresented or overrepresented in the need that currently exists. When 34 per cent of the homelessness in the major cities is made up of Aboriginal people, and when the Aboriginal people make up only 3 per cent of the population, something is wrong. If we made up only 3 per cent of the homeless people, then we would not complain. However, we do complain, because we make up that portion.
Mr. Poirier: Families come into my office every day from different communities throughout the province. They come ill-prepared. Winnipeg has probably one of the lowest vacancy rates that we have experienced in many years. The vacancy rates we quote are about 1.5 per cent, I believe. CMHC has polled apartment blocks to come up with these rates when we are actually talking about rates for these families. A mother with two children is provided $310 on their social assistance budget for housing. I would challenge anyone to find a two-bedroom house for $700 a month rent in Winnipeg without a subsidy attached to it. Where does that family go? I am not able to give them hope. I say I might have something in two or three years. What does that family do for two or three years while they wait? The situation is not acceptable. Regarding the hopes of these families, where do they go? They end up living with friends and relatives in crowded situations. They change everything that is done. The situation is unmanageable. Families do not relate well living with other families. There are tensions, things that happen and all kinds of problems.
At the same time, I am not adding any new houses. I am not building up my inventory. It is actually going down. By 2017, Kinew Housing will have no more subsidized housing unless something is done. Those housing units will come up. Their rents will be $650 or $700 a month, unless we dispose of them or reduce the numbers by selling them or, perhaps, making them available somehow for tenants to purchase. The situation is not acceptable.
What do I do with those families? Where do I send them? Where else do they go? We are almost the last hope for those families. When we see their faces, it is something else. It does not make our day to say, "I am sorry but I cannot do anything for you.''
The Chair: You make a key point we need to bear in mind. In the staff notes that we have in front of us, a chart at the top of page 5 shows some of the stark realities facing the Aboriginal community and some of the statistics as they compare to the population in total.
For example, the percentage of children under age 15 in low-income families is 20.6 per cent in the general population; it is 50 per cent in the Aboriginal population. These statistics are stark and different with respect to the Aboriginal versus the non-Aboriginal population throughout that chart. That difference is worth looking at. You can see the dimension and the scope of the problem that we are dealing with.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In terms of making our day, I am sure this is the most profound and important thing we hear today. We need to hear from people like you, listen and see if we can do anything.
Are the urban Aboriginal housing trust funds and the off-reserve the same thing? In your document, Mr. Seymour, one is called "urban,'' and the other is called "off-reserve.'' Are you talking about the same money?
Mr. Seymour: No, three programs came out in post-1996 funding: the affordable housing program; a second supplement to that, which had no target to Aboriginal people; and the third and final one, what people call the "housing trust.'' Of that housing trust, there was a dedicated, committed component of $300 million for the Aboriginal housing trust fund. In our paper, we talk about the non-reserve funding that is needed.
Do you have a specific reference that maybe I could be clearer about?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am trying to understand what is on the table now. I have a specific question. I have gone through your presentation, particularly, although each one is important and moving. I have looked at every place where you mention money and your recommendations for action. One is for research. Recommendation 17 is the funding to ensure Aboriginal housing delivery, and that seems to be the key one there.
I want to ask you about the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, of which there was originally $300 million. If I look at 2007 to 2009, which is obviously the period we are in, I will take two examples: New Brunswick would have $4.4 million and Ontario $53.4 million.
Is there any way you can tell me what percentage of the actual need that funding would meet, if it was used right away to the best advantage, used wisely, with your advice? Also, in this country, in this land, are special-care homes available for your elders. Special-care homes become necessary for many of us. I am not talking about a nursing home where they must be ill to be in one, but rather the intermediate level of special-care homes where they cannot cope on their own. You must have many elders in this country who need that support.
Mr. Seymour: A report called, A Portrait of Seniors in Canada, has been produced by Statistics Canada. It is not in your package because we did not give you all the studies and reports. We tried to keep that package simple so you could read it overnight. Chapter 6 is about Aboriginal seniors, and it talks about the percentage of seniors living in overcrowded conditions in relationship to non-Aboriginal seniors, which comes back to the relativity of the Aboriginal needs.
On page 243 of the report, chart 6.19 shows that in all areas of Canada, the overall average situation is that 7.5 per cent of Aboriginal seniors live in overcrowded conditions compared to 2 per cent for the non-Aboriginal people.
It becomes concentrated. In the reserve community, there is as much as 15 per cent overcrowding with seniors, whereas in the non-reserve community, or off-reserve, 6 per cent of the people are overcrowded, whereas the non- Aboriginal community is 2 per cent. There is huge overcrowding. This package will be left with the clerk, and you can read it at your leisure. It gives the statistics.
However, your question goes further, not only to statistics. We have discovered in a couple of instances — there are periodic examples — that one of the positive benefits of the Urban Native Housing Program was that it built institutions that we now refer to as "housing providers:'' Kinew, and M'akola where I come from, and in your own city here, Gignul.
There are the capabilities and skills to deliver on future units, and the skill to understand and perform the analysis, as you have heard here. As a consequence, there are examples.
The M'akola Housing in Victoria has developed housing, in concert with the City of Langford and the Province of British Columbia. It is not purely Aboriginal. Let me make that clear. We want to be fair to everyone. We said it would be a seniors' home for all seniors, but we give preference to the Aboriginal community to keep the ratio the same, so those in need would be provided for.
We, as an Aboriginal organization, in a subsidiary, are providing for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, trying to balance the score.
I understand Gignul has one as well. There are examples across Canada.
Mr. Poirier: In Winnipeg we have a seniors' residence. Kekinan is the name of that organization. It provides 32 suites for our elders. One dilemma we face regularly is as families grow older and their children move on, what happens to that elder? They must move, but where to? Thirty-two suites are not enough. Over the years, Kekinan has made several attempts to implement phase 2 of their project, which would double the size but the attempts were unsuccessful.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The senior population is growing exponentially in Canada. Is your senior population also growing?
Mr. Poirier: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We talk a lot about homeless Aboriginal youth, and we must continue to talk about that subject, but I also wanted to bring up the subject of Aboriginal seniors, of your elders. Is there a compassionate movement towards these people across the land?
Mr. Seymour: Absolutely, that is why I use two terms. One is the continuum, but the other is the dynamics of unit analysis. When we started M'akola in 1984, we realized that 60 per cent of the waiting list was single mothers in the age range of 20 to 24 with anywhere from one to three children. Therefore we built three-bedroom houses.
Now, 24 years later, someone who was 24 is 48. They are not seniors, but their children have grown up and moved away. We have middle-aged women with a three-bedroom house. We call these people empty-nesters. We want to find ways to consolidate the empty-nesters so they will have homes, but move them from a three- and four-bedroom house to a two-bedroom house. This move will free up the bigger home so new families can move in.
The only way to do that is to have a program that is flexible enough to respond to the dynamic need, as I mentioned in the six principles.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I mentioned $4.4 million for New Brunswick and $53.4 for Ontario. What percentage of that funding would be needed if it were used right away?
Mr. Seymour: Based upon the 2001 Statistics Canada figures, we said in our study that the Government of Canada needs to deliver 2,200 units per year. As I said in my opening comments, we hope to update this study, to talk about it. If we take the example of B.C — because the economics are unknown — they will build only 292 units. When we take that across Canada and we see that B.C. received $50 million, that is one sixth of the money. If we take 292 units, round it to 300 and multiply it by six, we have 1,800 units.
The amount of $300 million is only what we projected for one year, and it will be stretched over three years. Our number was not to satisfy the full need. To satisfy the need, we need to multiply it by 10, because we thought if we asked for the full need in one year we could not deliver all the units. We decided to do what we can, using the 2001 figures. We want 10 times 2,200 units.
Mr. Augustine: One concept that we have been working on in P.E.I., and that we have expressed a need for to the premier's office, is an elders' complex. At one point in time, we had someone draft a design. It is one level with several units combined into one area. We want it all on one floor. We are looking at possibly having support staff to come in and facilitate as much independent living as possible, where common areas would be utilized for socializing.
Ms. Brown: In respect to elders' housing, I know in the North many communities are successful with some of the elders' housing they have provided, but we do not have anything in Ottawa. We are experiencing problems with accessibility to apartment buildings. We have elders who must go up or down stairs to access their apartment and we have no other choice because we are restricted to those buildings for the single units. If we had money to spend today, we would look into single units that are wheelchair and scooter accessible. That need is a desperate one for us at the moment.
Senator Keon: As I listen to you, it seems to me that you are suffering from the same illness as most bureaucratic programs. You are suffering from suffocating bureaucracy. You cannot go from the top to the bottom, or you cannot go from the bottom to the top in the various initiatives you have.
You need about 2,200 units a year, which does not seem like a big number to me. Developers in the big cities crack out that amount of housing in a matter of months.
The other point is, you need to work with 110 organizations, I understand, and in Ontario, 40 organizations. You look at the capital cost of 2,200 units. Unless someone is becoming rich building these units at $250,000 each in Vancouver, you should be able to provide 2,200 units a year through 110 organizations without an exorbitant cost. The difficulty is that you cannot put the organization in place to tie all the things together to do the job. I congratulate you on the initiatives you have put in place on the ground.
Do you have any resources to look at this need from top to bottom and to put in place a strategic plan for 2,200 units a year, with the capital costs of building them and the operating costs of sustaining them? I do not know what the turnaround time would be on the kind of unit you are talking about. However, I think the turnaround time on most domestic units is in excess of 20 years. I imagine the maintenance costs could be calculated easily.
If you could come up with a program such as that, I do not see what could stand in your way. Who in their right mind would resist providing 2,200 units of housing a year?
I want to hear from you as to what you need in the way of planning assistance to take your program out there and move your agenda forward.
Mr. Seymour: The National Aboriginal Housing Association needs that kind of support. Three mechanisms are needed to deliver the funds necessary. You raise the issue of bureaucracy. The federal government has experience in delivering housing through the 110 organizations because the government developed those organizations.
The second mechanism is dumping money onto the provinces and hoping to God they will do the right thing. We are witnessing that situation in the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, when money is dumped on the provinces with no conditions but to spend it on housing and delivery.
As you say, we must deliver the units. The $300 million figure will meet one-tenth of the needs, which is less than one year's worth of effort. The provinces have been holding those monies since October 1, 2006. We have discovered that on or about the date the Minister of Finance wrote the cheques and delivered them to the provinces. Except for B.C., the provinces have done little to deliver housing.
The third possibility is to assist us in developing a foundation where we work in concert with the other Aboriginal communities, as has been indicated in the Healing Foundation example as well as other foundation models. I know that Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, CHRA, developed a foundation proposal, and Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation is currently working on a market model with $300 million. We are standing by to see that work unfold in order to develop market-based housing on reserve, which will not touch the non-reserve community. That is another vehicle.
We realize that we want the participation of the provinces. They owe a duty to all humans in their jurisdiction, and we consider ourselves in that category. We feel that we need something that will involve the provinces. Maybe the Off- Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust was not the way to go about it. It may have required more conditions.
However, the foundation has its positive aspects because it eliminates the bureaucracy and puts the onus on the Aboriginal community to actually engage the provinces. In our mind, the provinces have the resources to provide collateral in programs.
You have heard from your member representing Prince Edward Island talk about the other kinds of things that provide social services to the tenants to move them along the continuum. We cannot provide shelters without programs that actually help people become whole.
Whatever option we use, we must ensure the involvement of others. One of my six principles is ensuring that there is facilitation towards the involvement of others.
The on-reserve community is extending. It is not so much because of the Corbiere decision but because First Nations have a duty to their people who live outside of reserves. Engaging on-reserve people is a challenge but one worth undertaking.
While we support the foundation model, we think it could entail more than one foundation. A man by the name of Arthur Donner completed all kinds of studies for CHMC on foundation models, and they were all considered to be trash.
Senator Keon: I think everyone who has had an experience with trying to follow federal-provincial transfers and where they should go understands the difficulties with them. However, if you nail them to the cross with a good strategic plan, they cannot dodge you. If you follow the money, they must be accountable.
I think your problem is that you currently have many organizations but not one organization that allows you to follow the money. I have spent my whole life in health, and I believe good health is dependent on a dozen things, including housing. However, I think it is a big mistake when trying to provide housing to be distracted into trying to provide all the other things. Let us build the house and not be distracted.
I cannot imagine why, in a country like this, we cannot provide 2,200 units of public housing per year. To me, not being able to do that is unthinkable.
The Chair: Do the other panellists want to weigh in on this discussion.
Mr. Poirier: Regardless of the program model we use or how we deliver it, it does not involve one-time funding or 25 years of funding. It is permanent funding. It is something that will not go away. We must have these houses. We should have flexibility with some of the properties we have.
Currently, if I sold a house, I would lose the subsidy. That subsidy should have been transferable. It should have been moved from that house to another property. Currently, that transfer is not happening.
Those kinds of things need flexibility, but it needs to be long term. I am sorry, but 25 years or 30 years seemed like a long time back then. Suddenly, I face a problem now that I do not want anyone else to have to face. Let us put the funding in place permanently. The problem is not going away.
Senator Keon: I fully appreciate your frustrations.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to respond before I move on to the next senator?
Mr. Seymour: No, other than to say I agree with the senator. It should be simple and obvious, yet somehow it is not.
You can see the evolution in the friendship centre movement in Ontario. While that movement started a number of housing organizations, they moved the housing off to the side and let housing be housing and social services be social services. You are right on the score of let us build the housing first. The federal and provincial government need to stop arguing over whose job it is and do it.
Senator Keon: But my question to you was: What can we do to provide you with the resources for strategic planning? I would like you all to respond.
Mr. Seymour: Support the National Aboriginal Housing Association and national conference on developing a 10- year national housing strategy.
Ms. Brown: I fully agree that a housing strategy is desperately needed.
Mr. Augustine: One of the things that we face in Prince Edward Island is we are constantly being told that we lack the critical mass.
I have lived in Ottawa before, and talking to people on the street, they say, "Oh, you have Indians and Aboriginal people living in Prince Edward Island?'' When we look at program funding and decisions that affect Aboriginal programs, it is almost as if they say under their breath, "You do not have the critical mass to warrant that type of funding.'' It is almost like it is a condition of Confederation. In order for P.E.I. to be part of Canada, they need that critical mass, and if they do not have it, then they should not even bother sitting at the table.
When looking at planning systems and our historical experiences, when funding agreements involved capacity building, a lot of the time we did not receive those types of funding. With off-reserve housing, First Nations will be vying for a place at the table, and I can understand their position. They have had that historical experience of receiving those types of resources to build capacity and to do the operations and maintenance type of stuff.
The nature of our organization is such that a lot of Aboriginal people live off the reserves, and most federal and provincial funding goes towards First Nations. It has always been a struggle for us to build capacity. It is really difficult in P.E.I.
The Chair: Is there anything else on this key question?
Mr. Seymour: As a supplemental piece, we are talking about a national strategy to resurrect a housing program that would deliver the 2,200 units and respect the six principles I spoke to.
One criticism of the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust is that it is solely capital dollars. They need operating dollars. I wanted to point that out.
The other point is, as I said before, targeting Aboriginal people is important and in that sense, to spin out my point of supporting existing housing providers, we recognize Aboriginal delivery is needed of Aboriginal housing units. The existing providers have evolved from the Aboriginal community to provide for their Aboriginal people. It is important that we spin that out and to understand that it is up to those providers to put in the culture component as required, wherever that housing is. I have been told to put that point across in those three supplemental items.
Senator Fairbairn: Mr. Seymour, I listened to you talk about housing and the national government. The word "Alberta'' popped out at one point. You spoke about a program there with a three-year part involving renovations but no new houses.
I have done some of these things myself over the years and have seen some good housing put up in Calgary, which is a vibrant place and not thought to be poor. The housing was particularly for Aboriginal people, mothers with children and that sort of thing. They put it close to schools, and it all looked good, and then it started to go downhill.
Do you have any thoughts about that kind of project?
Mr. Seymour: My comments earlier about Alberta related to the cross-country checkup I did with respect to the National Aboriginal Housing Association. With their share of the Aboriginal housing trust, Alberta has told us they have divided the money and said that they will spend this much this year, as it is allotted over a three-year period. As part of the range of how the money can be spent, the province says the money can be used for anything as long as it is housing, so they have included renovations. I was asked the question previously, "How many housing units will come out of the money?'' If a province uses the money for renovations — and that is valid — we will not make a dent in the existing need; we will simply support the existing units. It is critical to understand the difference between those two things.
We have not yet seen any product in Alberta from the money. Alberta has a unique situation in Canada for housing providers. There are two sets of housing providers. There are those tied to the treaty groups, much like in Prince Edward Island. There is an on-reserve group extending its arm through a subsidiary organization providing housing in the urban settings. The problem is that once they cut the program, as was done in 1994 and then devolved in 1996, they start to consolidate like any other business. If a home-based business is on-reserve, they start to consolidate on-reserve.
Your observations are correct. Urban programs diminish when they are run from the reserve community.
Senator Fairbairn: And when they are needed most.
Mr. Seymour: Yes, when they are needed most. Amisk Housing Association is part of our organization. It is located in Edmonton. It has made alliances with the City of Edmonton and is part of the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund, which was developed to create local equity to provide for housing and take advantage of it. The association is doing numerous things in Edmonton. These examples are of where we work together to provide housing for everyone, with everyone respecting that housing is a human right. That is what happens. That is why one of my six principles is we must involve all parties because all parties are involved. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Cordy: We have good representation from Atlantic Canada around the table.
Thank you for giving voice to the unacceptable conditions of Aboriginal peoples living without housing. Mr. Poirier indicated that lack of housing destabilizes families, and Senator Keon spoke of it as a determinant of health. How can you have good physical and mental health without a place to call your own?
In relation to various levels of government cooperating to do what is right, who takes the lead? Mr. Poirier, in Kinew, various levels of government work together on housing, do they not? How did that occur? Who takes the lead and says what is needed and the funding required? Who brings all the bodies to the table, or is there a point where everyone comes together in one place?
Mr. Poirier: It is rare that we come together.
In the last two years we were able to build a few units. The Province of Manitoba was the driving force. People wanted to see things done and nothing happened so we approached numerous levels of government. We brought them to the table and said, let us sit down and discuss subsidized housing. They said nothing is available. We responded with, "Okay, let us leave. We are done here.''
The province picked it up and we were able to build those houses. We need to drive it. The province did not give it to us; they only made it available. Manitoba seems to be doing well with that program, but it is not enough.
Senator Cordy: Manitoba was talking with you. However, other provinces have received funding from the federal government and it is sitting unused, which is a crime.
Mr. Poirier: The housing trust money is a different pot of money. The housing trust money is sitting in limbo from what I understand.
Senator Cordy: That situation makes no sense to me, or to you, obviously.
Mr. Poirier: I understand the need for going slow, but not too slow.
Senator Cordy: We should not go backwards either.
Should strings be attached to money that comes from the federal government? Provinces do not like to have strings attached or to have targeted funding. How do we ensure that when federal money goes to the provinces or territories that it will be spent in a reasonable period of time after consultation with people within the province? To see money sitting in a pot and not used makes no sense.
Mr. Poirier: We must realize that the money is only one-time capital funding; no operating expenses are provided. Am I to build something and watch it fall down? I do not want to do that. We need to change how that funding works and where we obtain money for operating it after it is built. That operating money needs to be part of any program.
Senator Cordy: There is no point having a building that is empty.
The Chair: With respect to Winnipeg, a mechanism called an urban development agreement is a tri-level agreement that supposedly related to Aboriginal services, including housing. Are you familiar with that agreement and has it made any difference?
Mr. Poirier: I am not sure what it is exactly. A homelessness initiative was brought to the city, the province and the federal government together to make a single-window approach where we were able to walk into their office and find out what programs existed at the three levels. However, the amounts of money were small and, again, they were capital funding more than anything else.
The Chair: That initiative has not made a dent, then?
Mr. Poirier: No.
Senator Cordy: Funding for capital projects and proposals may be only for capital expenditures, but it is money. We heard a great deal of frustration when we were in St. John's, Newfoundland about the amount of time it takes to fill out proposals for projects. It was indicated that groups need almost a full-time staff person to do that work and they do not have those staff at their disposal. They also spoke of the challenge to find out what is available from the different levels of government to bring forward proposals.
I understand that we all need to be accountable for money that we spend and that is given for projects. Mr. Augustine, do you experience frustration in trying to find out what projects are available and the time element in terms of completing the project proposal?
Mr. Augustine: There is a lot of frustration because we have such a small core staff, and reporting requirements are always changing. Someone must draft the report.
Other than constitutional reform and redefining jurisdictions, an approach that works for the Native Council of Prince Edward Island was establishing a tripartite committee. Everyone then sits at the table and everyone is on the same page. I find this approach is beneficial, although it may take time.
Mr. Seymour: Since 1996, we have seen that piecemeal approaches do not work. Holding the province accountable by giving them one chunk of money with no strings attached does not work to deliver units in timely, efficient way. Developing a national program with a philosophy that says, "Over the next 10 years we will build 2,200 units, come hell or high water, every year for the next 10 years,'' would be preferable, provided that strategy incorporates consultation processes at the beginning and reporting and accountability requirements throughout. Housing delivery mechanisms must be developed from an accountability point of view. That requirement applies to non-Aboriginal as well as Aboriginal communities. We have seen this need with the success the federal government has had with the other programs.
I am a marathon runner, and marathon runners do not run only with sneakers. We have technology that provides us with a global positioning system, GPS, tells us our heart rate and our pace, and measures as many as five or six variables all carried in a miniscule piece of equipment that facilitates our run to a target, a finish line. Your question is devoted to understanding how to minimize the data needed to ensure that people move toward the right target.
I suggest that one of the three things needed is: First, a long-term — 10-year — objective with a long-term plan so people know they are not here for a short time. The attitude is one of: "Who cares about $300 million? We will get rid of it as long as we can, or hide it until no one talks about it.'' If someone says we will receive $300 million a year for the next ten years to ensure we deliver this many houses, perhaps we will stop renovating old houses and build new ones.
They call it "strings attached.'' Currently, when we ask the Government of Canada who the province is accountable to, they say the provinces are not accountable to the federal government. They are accountable to their citizens. In B.C., when they consulted with the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, we gave them these four principles: We want them to target the units to Aboriginal people; ensure that only Aboriginal people can apply for the money; that it be done on a fair basis with a transparent selection process; and that there is an evaluation. None of those principles were required by the federal government. There is no evaluation to establish balance and accountability, to say, "We did poorly this year because we hit this part of the continuum and not that part.''
To answer the question, senators and the federal government must support the National Aboriginal Housing Association, plus the regional organizations. Doing so ensures that these organizations become, as we call it, the "canary in the mine'' or the "watchdog for their eyes and ears.'' People at the grassroots level are watching what happens. The federal government will not ever see how money slips through.
Senator Brown: I spent nine years on a local planning commission outside Calgary. I spent the last five of those years as chairman. We were able to make decisions for everyone except Natives. We could obtain a permit to build, plan or subdivide in less than three months. We could not help those on the Redwater Reserve or others around Calgary in a timeframe of less than six months to a year. That being said, that is where part of the problem comes from: Governments that have always felt they could deal with the problem better at the federal level than they could at the provincial or municipal level.
I think we have made a fundamental mistake for about a hundred years now. The witnesses here make the same mistake. We need to build not units but homes. Homes come with titles. The people who live in the homes need to feel like they are home and must have ownership. If they grow old and their children go away, they need to be able to sell that home, take the equity out of it and put it into a smaller home. Regardless, it must be a home. They cannot feel that it is a home unless it truly is theirs. I think if you build 2,200 homes per year, you might have a chance of solving this problem.
The City of Chicago tried to build a lot of units for many people and they built 20-, 30-, and 40-storey apartment buildings. They put them all in a city block. Within five or six years, they were faced with the need to destroy over 50 per cent of them. The one thing they did not provide was any sense of a home or sense of outdoor green space. They razed 50 per cent of them. Now it is a housing unit that has some chance of survival.
We must stop talking about "units.'' You gentleman must stop talking about "units'' and start asking this country to build "homes.'' You need people who live in that home and know that it is theirs as long as they want it, for as long as they look after it and protect it. Then you will end this bullet on page 6 of the briefing notes from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service that says that part of the problem is that "Aboriginal people with low incomes live in temporary housing . . . often experiencing frequent moves from one housing situation to another.''
Nothing will make a person homeless faster than moving from one housing situation to another over and over again. They must have a home. If we want to change the psychology of this thing, we must stop talking about "units'' and "apartments.'' We need to start talking about "homes.''
Senator Keon: The chair was the mayor of Toronto for a long time, and much loved. I thought he was re-elected twice, but he was elected four times. Drive along the waterfront if you want to see private homes.
The Chair: Thank you for the plug. I will eventually weigh in on this subject.
Ms. Brown: I completely agree. That is something that we, as a board, have been trying to figure out. Namely, how can we possibly assist people who have moved to Ottawa for whatever reason with purchasing homes and having a sense of ownership? We find that major social problems are attached to the housing units we have, especially in the Vanier area. Vanier in Ottawa has a bad reputation. The social problems exist because the housing is located in a bad area. Our goal is to diversify and try to find houses for people so they feel like the houses are their property.
Mr. Augustine: The comment about "units'' and "homes'' is interesting. It is all about how you frame the issue and the type of language used.
We are experiencing a shift from collective values to individual values. These individual values are elements of ownership. The way things are structured currently, there is no ownership of the units. It is the way everything unfolded and rolled out. Aboriginal people are adapting to how the issue is framed and the language that is used.
If I were to receive a gift in a give-away, I could do whatever I wanted with that gift. I could even choose to give it away myself. When a person owns something at an individual level, they can take pride in that ownership. As long as people have this pride in owning their own homes, there is a good chance that individuals will take good care of their home and their surroundings. They will look after the aesthetics of it.
However, when it is framed as "units,'' in that language, it is just nature that ownership is so elusive.
Mr. Seymour: Let me make three points: In our forums we refer to units as homes 100 per cent of the time. They are homes. We do not build units. For bean counters or number crunchers, we use the term "units'' because that is what they want to know.
Second, NAHA has already made a proposal to explore that approach, and your support with funding would be well appreciated.
Third, in respect of the continuum and understanding what that is, we cannot provide a homeless person with a free home because, as they say on-reserve, they provide almost free homes on reserve and they receive 18 years of housing out of those houses, the life of that house. To instil the kind of pride you are talking about on reserve, they would have all their housing needs on reserve satisfied because the Government of Canada provides huge amounts of money for houses on reserve that last only half the life expectancy of other houses. We believe that pride comes with one's contribution.
The taxpayer could not afford to buy houses for everyone who needs one because the costs incurred by the taxpayer, who is ready to hang the Aboriginal for getting too much all the time from government, would be much higher. We must match it properly with respect. The pride comes in understanding that it is their home. I agree with you 100 per cent. It comes with some effort by the individual to acquire it. Giving it for free does not do it. They must do something for it and if they do not, there might be a problem, as witnessed with our experience on reserve.
Senator Brown: I was not suggesting for a minute that we give them free homes. Rather, I was suggesting that we give them homes with titles and that those titles have mortgages that are paid over time. You say you want permanent funding so what better way can there be than with 25-year mortgages on these homes that are paid by the federal government in part and in part by the people who live in the homes? That suggestion is for a 25-year plan. I am sorry to contradict you but you did not use the word "home'' until I had mentioned it. Instead, you talked about units. If you want to change the language, tell the builder you want homes, not units. You can change the language. You do not have to wait for someone else to change the language.
Mr. Poirier: Homeownership among Aboriginal people is the next step. We have to go to that next step first. We have so many families that do not have the financial ability to take on these mortgages. I am not sure how we would set up a system of who would receive the new homes. The families that come to me looking for housing do not have the financial means to move out of this area and into homeownership, and so they come to me.
A number of years ago in the 1980s, we put a group of homes up for sale and out of, I believe, 25 homes, two families purchased homes, and one family is still in the home they purchased. I receive few calls from tenants asking about how they can buy a house.
It is the next step but we are not there yet.
Senator Cook: Thank you for the passionate and visionary presentations. My question will be philosophical but practical. Who will roll away the stone? Can any of you name it? To be clear, I heard Mr. Seymour mention a 10-year strategy. Maybe you could provide us with your wish list or your dream. You have indicated a number of what I call barriers and who will roll away the stone? Will we attempt to do it on your behalf? If so, we need your help. Other than the 10-year strategy, I did not hear who will roll away the stone or even anyone identify it. That is my question.
Mr. Seymour: That question is a fabulous closure to this exercise. Mr. Chair, I will wrap this up quickly. We all together will roll away the stone because we can never do it alone. The only things that we want to do are to ensure that first, you support the mechanisms that bring people together to discuss what will be done and that second, as I said in the principles, you understand the needs along the continuum of needs. That continuum includes the need for homeownership, the ability to take care of it and facilitate it. You need to support those pieces that are not supported now — the National Aboriginal Housing Association, and similar regional associations. You need to support the kinds of efforts that are made in B.C., where they have a housing Memorandum of Understanding that brings people together. You need to support national conferences that encourage people to discus what can be done.
As I have tried to articulate, the country is vast. It has huge differences in its economies, and in its Aboriginal awareness, respect, cultures and approaches that have evolved over time. There will not be one panacea. The approach will require developing regional organizations. It will require bringing them together nationally to see the national vision. We should have one single goal: to roll the stone away and ensure that a minimum of 2,200 homes are built every year for the next ten years.
The Chair: I thank all four witnesses for their participation. They have given us much valuable information and a greater interest to do as much as we possibly can to work with them in rolling away the stone.
The committee adjourned.