Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 3 - Evidence - February 11, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 11, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:31 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in the room or via CPAC or the Web.
Before we begin our examination of infrastructure and housing, I think I would be remiss in not noting an important event that occurred at the Blood Reserve in Alberta on Friday. National Chief Atleo was there. Our committee was represented by me, Senator Tannas and the former chair of this committee, Gerry St. Germain. While there are still many steps to go, a very promising beginning was made to addressing the subject of First Nations education on-reserve. The national chief, the Prime Minister and Minister Valcourt talked about steps going forward, including some matters that I believe will be addressed in the budget speech today. I mention this to our committee because we did a report, Reforming First Nations Education: From Crisis to Hope, and we recommended a legislative framework, which it now seems will move forward in collaboration with First Nations and our government. There are steps yet to be taken — and I suspect our committee will be involved as we go forward — but it was a promising event. I just wanted to mention that today before we begin our work.
I am Dennis Patterson from Nunavut, chair of the committee. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. In order to understand the concerns of our constituents, we regularly invite witnesses who can educate us on the topics that are currently of importance to them.
These sessions are valuable in helping the committee to decide what future studies it will undertake in order to best serve the Aboriginal community. Recently, we have been holding briefings where witnesses have provided general background information on the broad question of financing infrastructure on reserves, which could relate to capital projects, schools and housing, among other things. Lately, our focus has turned to housing, in particular.
This morning, we will hear from a frequent guest before this committee, the Assembly of First Nations. The AFN has often expressed the view that housing in First Nations communities is inadequate, noting concerns about both the size and the safety of existing housing stock. We look forward to receiving greater detail from our witnesses, and we welcome you here.
Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Good morning. Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Dyck: Good morning. I'm Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. I'm also the deputy chair of the committee.
I want to congratulate Chief Atleo for the agreement that was announced on Friday. As many people know, I have been very active on the First Nation education file, and, as the deputy chair of the committee, it would have been nice had I also been invited to the meeting. Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: I am curious about that fact. That was a First Nations undertaking. Why were First Nations on our committee not invited if others were?
The Chair: You ask a good question, senators. I received a last-minute invitation. I think Senator Tannas, who happened to be travelling home for that event, did as well. We should note that and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: Come to think of it, why is it that this is an Aboriginal peoples committee, and an Aboriginal person is not the chair of our committee? Why is that? Can you tell us?
The Chair: It wasn't my decision who was named as the chair, but it is customary to have a member of the government as chair of the committee, as you know. Unfortunately, there are no qualified persons on the government side in the Senate at the moment.
Senator Sibbeston: In the spirit that the Senate is taking, where we have become independent, will you consider resigning and letting someone else — an Aboriginal person — take over as chair?
The Chair: With all respect, Senator Sibbeston, I think you are probably not in order with that suggestion, but I will undertake to bring it up with the steering committee and with our leadership. Thank you for the suggestion.
Can we move on?
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from northwestern Ontario.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
The Chair: Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations: Shawn Atleo, National Chief; Glenn Hudson, Chief, Peguis First Nation; and Madeleine Paul, Chief, Eagle Village First Nation.
Chiefs, we look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from senators. I understand that Chief Paul will go first, followed by Chief Hudson and then National Chief Atleo.
Madeleine Paul, Chief, Eagle Village First Nation, Quebec, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning, everyone. Thank you, chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to speak with you today about housing and the housing needs of First Nations.
My name is Madeleine Paul. I am Chief of Eagle Village First Nation, an Algonquin community in the Temiskaming region, also known as Kebaowek First Nation. I am also the chief responsible for the housing and infrastructure file for the Assembly of First Nations in Quebec and Labrador. It is great to get the opportunity to present the housing challenges that our First Nations are faced with.
My presentation concentrates on the needs for housing and directly related infrastructure, like water and sewer networks. The other major infrastructure, like schools, water and sewer plants are not included in the numbers that I will mention.
First, I would like to mention the mandate of the AFNQL in housing. Housing is a priority for chiefs, and commitment on this issue is clear. The AFNQL was created in 1985 and is where the chiefs of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador meet. The AFNQL supports communities and represents a total of 10 nations. The themes of the mission and the objectives of the AFNQL revolve around affirmation and respect for our rights, recognition of First Nation governments, action strategies to advance the common positions, and the representation of the positions and mutual interests before various organizations.
As I said earlier, housing is a priority for the AFNQL chiefs. The chiefs have taken position on this issue repeatedly over the years. The objective is that the living and housing conditions improve in communities. This represents quite a challenge when we know the magnitude of the housing needs in First Nations.
Our chiefs are aware of the fact that housing plays a central role in communities and that any improvement in this area is likely to lead to tangible progress in health, education and employment among our members.
In pursuit of this objective, the AFNQL performs a series of actions. We try to identify what are the best strategies to meet the housing needs of the First Nations. We maintain a databank on the needs of the communities. We perform presentations to various organizations to influence the decision in favour of our concerns.
Also, I would stress this point: We are an integral part of the Regional Tripartite Housing Committee. This committee sits around the same table with representatives from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the AFNQL. We discuss housing issues that are of mutual interest and establish joint strategies. This regional committee is an example of collaboration between First Nations and government partners.
There are 42 First Nations in Quebec and Labrador, 40 in Quebec and 2 in Labrador, for a population of 81,000 registered members, 70 per cent of whom live in First Nation communities. There are 14,700 homes in the communities. Each unit houses 4.0 people on average. It is an average because we know that some families of eight, nine or even ten people are crammed in small houses.
Overcrowding is the main source of our housing needs. By comparison, the average for the province of Quebec is 2.1 persons per dwelling, according to the last census conducted by Statistics Canada.
For about 15 years, the AFNQL has maintained a data bank on the housing needs of First Nations. We use the basic departmental data as a starting point and we have them validated by the communities. In addition, we carry out a comparison with Statistics Canada census data and are able to explain the differences. Ultimately, we have reliable data that come from communities. We use this data widely to sensitize the authorities to the housing needs of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.
Our database therefore informs us about the needs of First Nations and the region more generally, for new housing units, for rehabilitation and decontamination of existing homes, and basic infrastructure. We have this portrait for 2000, 2006 and 2012.
When looking at statistics on a long period, it is possible to identify trends and findings. For example, we are able to say that on average each year, 250 housing units are built in our communities. Between 2006 and 2012, the Government of Canada invested additional housing funds in the communities for First Nations: $295 million in three years in 2005 and $400 million over two years in 2009. These investments have left specific traces in our communities. As I said earlier, our communities built an average of 250 homes per year. Those two major initiatives resulted, among others, in 750 units added to the housing stock. This is equivalent to nine years of construction in a period of six years, between 2006 and 2012. This is certainly no stranger to the fact that during this period the increase of the housing stock was greater than the increase of the population in the communities, or 17 per cent versus 11 per cent. This performance is reflected in the average size of households, which slightly decreased from 4.1 to 3.9 people per dwelling, between 2006 and 2012.
I could draw a similar parallel with the 2,150 housing units that were renovated and the additional funds during that same period.
What I want to bring to your attention, senators, is that our figures show that concrete results are achieved when the Government of Canada invests in First Nations housing beyond the limits of the regular programs. The curve of the evolution of the need for new housing units shows clearly the effect in the 2005 and 2009 initiatives. The need for housing increased by 25 per cent between 2000 and 2006 and only 7 per cent between 2006 and 2012. This is a step in the right direction.
The 2006-12 period was, however, marked by high inflation in the field of construction, of housing and of infrastructure. This helped to ensure that the financial need has increased in a phenomenal way to now $2.5 billion. This is the amount that would have to be invested to meet the housing needs of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. More specifically, the needs of our 42 First Nations include 9,400 new units to address overcrowding, to replace time- worn houses, to meet the population growth over a five-year period, to welcome non-residents who wish to live in their community and to develop new communities; 5,000 units to renovate; 1,600 units to decontaminate dealing with the presence of mould; 63 units to decontaminate dealing with the presence of vermiculate; 279 known cases of radon; 8,300 lots to serve by infrastructure.
The end of the economic action plan also marked the return to the steady pace of construction and renovation. I am afraid that our next statistical update shows strong growth in our housing needs, as was the case between 2000 and 2006. You know our communities must deal with strong housing demand sustained by dynamic demographics, rising construction costs and a social housing program downward. I am referring to CMHC's section 95 housing program.
Housing globally is an underfunded sector. These are major challenges for First Nations, particularly those where the housing market is not established and where the local and regional economies are poorly developed.
The chiefs' view to resolve the housing crisis has been the same for several years, and it consists of two basic actions: first, massive federal investment to eliminate the accumulated backlog; second, the negotiation and implementation of a new approach by which the First Nations will exercise their full jurisdiction over housing.
The AFNQL chiefs believe in partnership, and I think that it is in this spirit that the resolution of First Nation housing needs must be considered.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we will leave questions until the end of the presentations.
Chief Hudson, you have the floor.
Glenn Hudson, Chief, Peguis First Nation, Manitoba, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning. First, I want to give thanks for being here this morning and certainly for partaking in this presentation.
My name is Chief Glenn Hudson from Peguis First Nation from Manitoba. I come from an Ojibway-Cree community in Manitoba. Peguis is a couple of hours' drive north of Winnipeg, in the Interlake region of Manitoba. The word ``interlake'' is a good descriptor of our location, but, unfortunately, it has not always been a positive one. It is apt because we are in between two of the largest water bodies in the province and in the country — Lake Manitoba on the west and Lake Winnipeg on the east — which has a tremendous impact on the fortunes of our community. When the water levels rise, our fortunes go down because it means our lands and homes flood, and we have to go into recovery mode. This means that we have to wage a costly campaign against external authorities to try to make sure our people get fair treatment equal to the standards of Manitobans and Canadians elsewhere when their properties are impacted by emergencies such as floods. The control of water levels on these lakes is in the hands of hydro utilities, the priority of which is to exploit water resources regardless of our priorities on the reserve. This is a big picture that confronts us as we try to plan and provide shelter for our people.
Peguis is working to become part of the Manitoba economy. Peguis was relocated in 1907 after the illegal surrender of our lands at St. Peter's in the rich agricultural lands of Selkirk in the area. The illegal surrender claim filed by our First Nation council was finally settled in 2009. We are working to re-establish our presence in the Selkirk area by selecting lands in fulfillment of our treaty land entitlement. We are also working to select lands in the former Kapyong Barracks within the City of Winnipeg. On December 18, 2013, I announced a partnership with Assiniboia Downs in Winnipeg, a joint venture with the Manitoba Jockey Club to develop a hotel, convention centre, retail space and residential in and around the Downs facility, beginning this year.
The Peguis First Nation is a community of 3,900 on-reserve and about 4,700 non-resident band members. On Peguis reserve, there are approximately 950 single-family units and four multi-unit residences with two apartment units. Peguis is in a housing crisis with approximately 600-plus homes needed to fill the current backlog. Many residents are living in substandard housing conditions in which overcrowding, mould and flood damage contribute to mental stress, respiratory disease and other health problems. Of the present housing stock, 50 per cent is at risk of flooding due to its location along the Fisher River. Only 29 houses and a six-plex apartment for elders have been constructed in the past seven years.
In 2009, Chuck Strahl, then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, promised to replace 75 of 480 units flooded on our reserve, which were flood-damaged in three years. However, AANDC has managed to deliver only nine houses to date.
In 2010, the federal and Manitoba governments rushed to construct a $100-million emergency channel to drain water from Lake Manitoba and completed the project expeditiously. In 2014, we are still awaiting flood aid promised to our people over three years earlier. In Peguis, it was the actual homes that were destroyed by repeated flooding, not cottages or recreational property. It was our people's primary residences. We do not begrudge the First Nations and others who will benefit from the new channel that was built to minimize the flooding in their areas. Peguis council has requested federal and provincial cooperation in a long-term solution that would address our issues in like manner to the Lake Manitoba diversion but on a much smaller scale. Our proposal is that a diversion or floodway be built to relieve waters on the Fisher River. To date, only $8.5 million has been offered to replace or move 75 homes, when the number of homes actually impacted in one flood in 2010 was 480 homes.
Despite these issues, Peguis is making progress to address our housing. In Peguis, we are reminded every day that we need to make our housing work so that it is sustainable. We have to come up with a way of managing our housing that is separate from our political process. Making political points with housing is what drove our deficit to the problem levels prior to 2008.
This is why our council, in 2010, appointed a housing board responsible for managing housing on our reserve. Council must still be responsible for certain decisions that are statutory, which primarily have to do with lands. Peguis's housing board is authorized to be incorporated by Peguis council, which is responsible for housing for all band members including non-resident citizens. Over the past three years, the board has discussed and adopted revisions to the Peguis housing policy, allocated housing as needed and led a process of community approval of a comprehensive housing strategy to solve the housing crisis.
On February 25, 2012, the citizens of Peguis approved a housing board proposal to the Surrender Claim Trust for a grant of $3.5 million to establish a fund to begin housing construction. In 2012, we signed a financial deal with the Bank of Montreal to purchase 37 RTM homes to fast-track badly needed housing. These units have arrived and are in the process of being erected today. Foundations are being poured and houses are being put in place.
Peguis First Nation council and the Peguis housing development board have agreed that a new approach to housing, one that is a made-in-Peguis solution, that is practical and that is sustainable, is needed. Clearly the old approach of leaving housing to be decided by council alone and relying totally on the federal government to live up to its treaty obligation to fund homes is not working. It would be community-driven and have the support of our Peguis citizens. The Peguis housing board, Peguis council and the housing department have worked hard, over the past few years, to develop a new approach to housing that will be put before the membership in the next few months for discussion and approval.
The housing board has been mandated by a community vote and a grant of $3.5 million to kick-start housing. These monies are community funds and not government funds. Community funds should not and must not be construed as a surrender of our legal and moral assertion to treaty right to housing. By using our monies to fund housing construction, the board is not assuming the federal obligation to provide a treaty right to housing. Rather, it is a practical and responsible approach to answering a crisis that can no longer wait for federal action. The board and council have agreed that a new approach to housing is needed. The Peguis council is doing all it can to add housing stock, but we are concerned that it is not enough.
The housing board has decided that a two-pronged approach must be used in solving the crisis. First, the board and council must collaborate with other First Nations and organizations to mount a concerted effort on the treaty right to housing. A strategy should be developed today to pursue a more collaborative approach involving senior levels of government, funding and financial authorities, and industry best practices to focus on an approach to solve Peguis First Nation's housing. This should include legal options to force fundamental reform to existing frameworks that inhibit and discourage progress. For example, why does Ontario allow a shelter allowance for First Nations, but Manitoba does not? Peguis should work to force an answer to this question, and, if no reasonable answer is forthcoming, act to correct an unjust and unacceptable condition placed on First Nations housing by senior governments. Would Canadians resign themselves to our circumstances without a fight if this happened? No. Their politicians would respond to their concerns or be held accountable.
Second, a local solution must be based on the following principles: The principle could be as simple as ``If you work, you should pay for your own home so that everyone has a chance for adequate housing and catch up with our backlog.''
This is what got our elders through in tough times. It can work for us, too. Those who can afford to pay for their housing did so. In fact, there is a demand for mortgage housing in our community. I think we have a waiting list of over 80 people who are willing to look at mortgaging their own home.
More houses would be built with the housing budget that is provided by the federal government. What is fiscally and environmentally sustainable? Our generation should not foist its housing bills onto the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. Our housing has to be sustainable now, not in the future. We know we have to do the responsible thing and look at paying for our homes. We also need to be environmentally sustainable. We should not spoil our environment in developing our housing projects.
I want to note that within our community we have undertaken the process of having each and every home that is built and also commercial buildings within our community be heated by geothermal energy.
The land and the environment are one and the same thing to us. It's our sacred responsibility and trust.
What is common sense? Obviously, if you don't work, you don't have the ability to pay for your own home. A new approach must provide for those who are in need due to an inability to earn income or who don't have a job due to the depressed economy. This is why we've worked hard over the past few years to forge connections and partnerships with business both inside and outside of our community. We need to partner with others to ensure education, training and business capacity building and provide jobs for our people.
How can housing construction contribute to our economy? A key pillar in the housing strategy must be economic development, training and capacity building in trades, contracting and material supply.
I must also note that we do have one of the only Home Hardware stores in our area, which helps us in terms of our material supplies.
The housing strategy must offer a comprehensive solution that is community-driven and approved. In embracing the housing market, in 2011 Peguis First Nation signed an agreement with the First Nations Market Housing Fund to facilitate the availability of financing for an accessible supply of market-based housing, but also to build capacity in our community to become self-sufficient in developing sustainable market-based housing.
Other reserve communities have evolved free market housing where, as more people own their own home and are able to sell them to others, a free market will evolve enabling homeowners to reap the benefits of home ownership like in off-reserve communities. This is possible in our communities as well.
Peguis has a history of rental housing in which at least 100 homes are occupied by our people who are paying either rent or mortgages. Mortgage housing has proved to be a challenge, but we believe it's one way to build pride in our home ownership to encourage the free market housing in the long term.
What is the housing board doing with the $3.5 million allocated by the Surrender Claim Trust? On February 25, 2012, the community membership approved housing plans proposed by the board for a one-time allocation of $3.5 million from the Surrender Claim Trust. This fund will be used to secure and enable loans from a banking institution so that the housing shortage in Peguis can be addressed immediately and comprehensively.
In the road ahead, we are continuing to work with the federal and provincial governments to add housing stock, but the pace of progress has been frustratingly slow.
I want to provide an example of working with the provincial government, where we had a 55-plus unit that was provincially mandated just outside of our community and there were 15 units where they had two occupants in that unit, and when we spoke with the provincial government about the demand in our community they opened it up to rental to all ages. Now today that unit has been full as soon as word got out.
Our flood issues remain daunting. We need the cooperation of senior governments to build long-term solutions rather than short-term solutions to get us through the current crisis. This next building season will mark the beginning of a turnaround in our housing. We will put up a combined total of 54 units from various program offerings, including CMHC, AANDC housing units and our own BMO-financed housing program based on the principles of sustainable and market housing. We have a lot of work to do, but it's an important, concrete demonstration that we are making progress even though some of the federal programs in place may not be working for us currently.
I did want to state with regard to infrastructure that we need to tie into our home building the infrastructure in terms of sewer and waters being made available with our housing allocations. I know in 2005 the federal government had a program where you undertook mortgage housing, and along with that house came the allocation for sewer and water, but in the mainstream program under CMHC and others, that is not complemented with the number of units being provided. It is separate, so it needs to be looked at in terms of combining those.
Also, regarding the water initiatives through Health Canada, the money budgeted to sustain water treatment plants and water systems is not enough. One of the chiefs in a remote community in northern Manitoba told me they had a chlorinated water system throughout their community, but the budget allocated and provided by the federal government only allowed them to purchase enough chlorine for half a year, and the other half of the year, because of their location and remoteness, and being able to truck things to the North, they went without treated water for the remaining half a year. Those things need to be stepped up.
I also wanted to note that as far as the promotion of sustainable energy amongst our people goes, we have always lived in a sustainable environment and we certainly must look at programs that accommodate sustainable energy, like geothermal and even solar energy, for cases in the Far North where they are still using diesel.
I wanted to make these comments on infrastructure. With respect to the infrastructure overall, in some of our communities in the Interlake region, and I represent the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council as the chair there, we must be offered flood protection and certainly remediation and long-term mitigation to our communities so we can have a stable community where our houses and infrastructures aren't impacted by flood waters in the Interlake. To date, I know there are still 2,000 people who have been evacuated going back to 2010, and there is not one non-First Nation evacuee around those areas and throughout Manitoba. I ask the question, why is this happening today? Certainly that's something I want to bring to the attention of the committee here. I think there are practical solutions out there, but we need concrete commitments in terms of addressing these issues.
Meegwetch.
Shawn (A-in-chut) Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone. I am honoured to be here with Chiefs Paul and Hudson. I appreciate being welcomed to appear here before you today on unceded Algonquin territories.
As Chief Hudson has made reference, it is important that we place this conversation in the context of treaty rights of Aboriginal title and rights, of rights articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that we have a right to design an approach for issues that face our peoples. I know you have heard from a number of witnesses already, and I think it was important to hear both the regional and the local perspectives.
I join in supporting what the chiefs have expressed already. These are big numbers, if you think about Chief Paul's presentation on the needs that the AFNQL and their research have articulated, and I've spent time with Chief Hudson, seeing first-hand the issues that he faces. So often, this is the experience that I have. It's a tremendous privilege to travel to communities from coast to coast to coast, and it's also very difficult to see the suffering from the overcrowding and from the lack of adequate, safe and secure housing. It's so often most pronounced in the Northern regions, where it's so very clear that you have insufficient and inadequate housing. This is a health hazard. I often tell the story of young Jaden. When he was 10, I visited with him in his one-room shack, living with nine people with no electricity, with slop pails out the front and with no running water.
Mr. Chair, you made the inference to education, and I think this committee will perhaps consider some of the parallels between other areas like education as you're contemplating pursuing a study. I will add some remarks, but I keep Jaden in my heart and in my mind because I meet so many Jadens. He was telling me how proud his grandfather was about how well he was doing in school. Yet, how difficult it must be for him to do his homework living in a one- room shack with nine people. This leaves us asking questions about how it is that we find ourselves, in 2014, in one of the richest countries in the world, with this sort of reality.
I will add some additional comments. I think it's incredibly inspiring, on the one hand, to see the resilience of our people wherever I travel, of those that I spend time with and meet, but I think that now is a time to raise understanding about the overwhelming needs that face our people in areas like this. I think most Canadians aren't necessarily aware of the conditions that we're describing, about homes having three or four families and relying on a wood stove or diesel generator and about basic community infrastructure being lacking or inefficient due to inadequate capital and operations and maintenance funding. These factors affect how kids learn and grow, as in my reference to young Jaden, and how our communities can prepare for any opportunities for economic development. It's a simple fact that adequate and safe water is an economic driver that, when absent, will not attract investors to the communities.
Substandard and deplorable housing conditions in First Nations are a persistent and growing phenomenon. Current housing programs do not meet the increased demand for new housing units, brought on by the higher than average population growth, overcrowding, the outstanding and current effects of flooding, and deteriorating units as a result of poor construction and impacts from mould.
Between 2010 and 2034, it is estimated that there will be a backlog of 130,000 units. Forty-four per cent of the existing units will require major repairs, and 18 per cent will require replacement.
A portion of these replacement units are lost through fires. Recent tragic events involving fire fatalities also point to a lack of firefighting infrastructure, community awareness and training.
A CMHC 2004 report on Canadian housing fire statistics, which compared fire losses in only one- and two-family dwellings Canada-wide and for First Nations, based on number of units, showed that the First Nations fire incident rate is 2.4 times the Canada-wide figure, with the injury rate being 2.5 times higher. The damage rate is 1.7 times, and the fire death rate is 10.4 times higher. There are a few possible reasons for higher First Nation losses. The first is remoteness as rural locations have higher losses than urban areas. I have experienced this first-hand in my little village of Ahousaht on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Second, overcrowding has been demonstrated to create conditions that lead to higher fire death rates.
A February 2011 evaluation of on-reserve housing, supported by AANDC's Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Branch, Audit and Evaluation Sector, highlights the ongoing need and concluded that: ``Despite ongoing construction of new housing on-reserve, the shortfall still exists and appears to be growing rather than diminishing.''
Between 2013 and 2018, there will an estimated 9,580 on-reserve social housing units where federal subsidies will expire. During the same time frame, only a mere 2,075 planned new agreements are projected to be signed, meaning that some 7,505 families will not be able to afford housing in their communities, likely resulting in overcrowding with migration to relatives', family and friends' homes.
The prevalence of mould in many First Nations homes has created a heightened urgency to provide funding to remediate these homes. Overcrowding has increased the effect of flooding incidents and of mould on the health of occupants in many First Nations. Currently, there are 1,891 First Nations citizens away from their homes more than two years after the 2011 floods in Manitoba, with another 801 people displaced as of the Alberta flood of July 2013.
Their homes are no longer habitable and need to be renovated, replaced or relocated, to say nothing of the incredible human cost of families being disconnected from their territories and of the great strife and trauma of being relocated.
The federal government's investment of $300 million in 2007 for the First Nations Market Housing Fund has generated a total of only 55 housing loans in First Nations. AANDC's Ministerial Loan Guarantee program has approved 59 loans for individual home ownership on-reserve, from April 1, 2013, to November 27, 2013. This serves to illustrate that the government programs that have been created are not meeting the needs of First Nations. Processes, restrictions, guidelines and qualifications are deterring First Nations from accessing the First Nations Market Housing Fund. Some chiefs have given up altogether on trying to qualify.
The capacity development funding available to those First Nations approved by the fund is generating capacity and education in First Nation communities. However, those First Nations who truly require the funding are not able to access it.
In 2005, the Assembly of First Nations identified a need for 85,000 homes to address the backlog. This number was arrived at by working directly with First Nations organizations and basing this estimate on their numbers. A more recent analysis was carried out by Stewart Clatworthy in a study commissioned by AANDC. This analysis reported that over the 25 years between 2010 and 2035, as I said earlier, more than 130,000 housing units will be required, not to mention the many units that need renovations and repair due to changes in climate at the extremes, poor construction, crowding, high cost, and lack of sufficient income and skill to do the ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
Some regions have made an effort to quantify their housing needs with good results. However, not all regions have the resources to commit to this exercise. It appears that a more concerted effort would be in order to quantify the national housing needs. There is also a need for a multi-governmental dialogue to create action plans to address all housing issues found in the continuum of housing need. It is essential that First Nations be part of the development and implementation of solutions with their federal-provincial-territorial counterparts to create harmonious and cooperative relations based on principles, democracy, respect for human rights and non-discrimination. The Chiefs in Assembly have supported the creation of a national First Nations housing strategy, grounded, as I said earlier, in inherent and treaty rights, to clearly secure adequate, accessible and affordable housing and outline how all parties can work collaboratively to achieve desired outcomes. The challenges of such an undertaking are significant, but the resolve of First Nation chiefs to explore options and opportunities designed to overcome the current obstacles is clearly present, and you've heard that from the chiefs presenting here.
The Assembly of First Nations and Chiefs in Assembly have called for a comprehensive approach that includes all aspects of housing in a continuum, from new investments in social housing to more affordable housing and options for individual home ownership through to appropriately funded programs that target those in need. I think you'd agree that we cannot allow this situation to continue.
Our people are saying, through words and unprecedented actions, that they will not wait for change. Our youth are leading the way toward this moment of awareness and reckoning. The situation demands bold new approaches. Creativity and innovation are essential, and I appreciate that this is the reason you have asked to look at this matter in more depth.
Unfortunately, First Nations operate in an environment in which such creativity is often hindered by jurisdictional and bureaucratic barriers. Last week, the Assembly of First Nations convened a national First Nations infrastructure conference, which brought together over 500 delegates from across our territories to discuss challenges and the innovative ways they are working to overcome them. This conference was a step to address the critical need for sharing information amongst ourselves. Nowhere else other than at this national conference is there another opportunity to discuss innovative solutions.
Some areas of innovation explored included a public-private partnership being considered in Manitoba, involving four schools as a bundled project. This would be a first. As there is not enough capital to address First Nation infrastructure needs, P3 may be one successful tool for First Nations.
We also explored alternative infrastructure delivery options, including the creation of a First Nations-owned regional entity, operating in partnership for long-term, cost-effective and sustainable solutions. There are partners who are interested in providing alternative servicing and procurement options, et cetera, to address the gap in infrastructure for our communities.
However, for these options to work it requires the federal government to amend its policy on contribution agreements to consider much longer commitments to these financial partnerships. As we know today, contribution agreements are annual, in some cases multi-year, but generally not longer than five years. In order to get the interest of the financial partners, the commitment from the federal government has to be 15, 20, 25 years or even longer.
Another significant development is the First Nation Sustainable Development Standards, which resulted from a partnership between Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, the Assembly of First Nations and Mike Holmes, The Holmes Group, a pilot project. This four-volume guideline sets out 20 key recommended best practices and standards to assist First Nations in managing their housing programs sustainably, resulting in the design and building of more durable homes. These standards will be available to all First Nations to adapt and modify to suit their local environment and situation. There is no question adequate investments need to be provided.
At the most recent meeting of the Aboriginal affairs ministers and leaders of national Aboriginal organizations, Minister Valcourt spoke about First Nations housing needs, stating that increased investments would not address the problem. There's a bit of déjà vu about this, and I made reference to the correlation with education. It's exactly the same conversation that has played out for years in discussions on First Nations education. The federal government insisted that our schools were provided enough funding, in direct contradiction to the clear and present evidence.
We've moved past that and have found a new way forward, where real investment needs and First Nations education — as you said, Mr. Chair — have been acknowledged. Just as with education, resources need to be accompanied by support for First Nation-designed and -driven solutions that respond to their unique needs and circumstances.
First Nations must be given the opportunity to develop and participate in these solutions. The solution is to provide the resources to First Nations and for First Nation organizations to develop the technical, financial and management capacity to form the support mechanisms they need.
We recommend that other regional technical organizations, such as the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation and the Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group, be considered. These two regional technical service organizations were formed in the mid-1990s as part of the federal government's devolution of technical services to First Nations. Further increased support to the technical services component of tribal councils and large First Nations should be considered, including recognizing the innovative steps taken that Chief Hudson described in his housing board.
There have been rumours of federal legislation to develop standards similar to building codes we see in other jurisdictions. Make no mistake, First Nations absolutely want to build to the highest standards of safety and, as you heard, environmental sustainability, but imposing standards through legislation is not the answer. Truly, this has never been the answer. Instead, we need to work collectively to remove the barriers that get in the way of innovation and prevent First Nations from being able to pursue the real options that will improve the lives of their people.
I am appreciative that you have had a chance to hear from the chiefs sitting beside me about the situation they face. Before I close, I would like to suggest a few areas of focus for your study.
First, we recommend that the scope and cost of the gap in First Nations infrastructure be identified through a national capital needs assessment study. The study should include a business and implementation plan of viable options to finance the infrastructure gap. AANDC conducted a similar study for water and waste water facilities in the report released in July 2011 and identified $4.7 billion but did not include a business or implementation plan.
We know the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Canadian Infrastructure Report Card reported that, based on survey responses, overall report card ratings for the four asset categories show that a significant amount of municipal infrastructure ranked between fair and very poor — on average, about 30 per cent. The replacement of these assets alone totals $171.8 billion nationally.
The First Nations infrastructure gap is much more acute. Community infrastructure funded by AANDC includes water and waste water, distribution and collection systems, roads and bridges, community solid waste collection and disposal systems, electrical energy systems, bulk fuel storage and distribution systems. It includes firefighting facilities and fire detection systems, community buildings and flood and erosion control. Budget 2013 confirmed approximately $7 billion over 10 years in First Nations infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, energy systems and other First Nations infrastructure priorities.
We believe that the $700 million annually is insufficient to address the backlog of all these funded categories, which is increasing from the population growth, recapitalization and new systems. On many occasions we have brought up the impact of the 2 per cent cap on Indian programming imposed back in 1996. Taking inflation into account and increased cost of construction, the funding in effect has been level while population has been increasing at a much higher rate than off-reserve. Getting an accurate picture of this situation will help us all move towards solutions.
Second, the AFN recommends that this committee, in the interest of facilitating opportunities for innovation, study the real and ongoing barriers that exist to First Nations pursuing the options they require to build housing and to support infrastructure to maintain and protect these assets in their communities.
Resource revenue sharing has long been discussed as one solution to the funding gap that faces First Nations. Our communities have the solutions to achieve success through overcoming these barriers. Let's commit to working with them at the outset to truly support their potential and that of all First Nations.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: I would like to thank you all for your presentations, and particularly for the concrete recommendations you have made, which I know will be of great assistance to us. All I can say, on behalf of the committee, is that as we begin this work we are truly impressed by the urgency of the problem, and we are glad that we chose to focus on this area.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this morning. You've given such a wealth of evidence it's almost hard to know where to start.
Perhaps I will start with one very broad question. When people look at the housing situation on-reserve, they essentially throw their hands up saying it's too complex. There are short-term, critical needs that have been addressed, for example the flooding mentioned by Chief Hudson, and then there is the longer-term situation where you need the adequate funding and you need to plan for the future.
Where do you start? If you were in charge and you had everything that you needed to solve this complex problem, what would be the thing that you would choose first to start, and then what would be your long-term objective? I know it's a broad question, but maybe it would help focus things.
The Chair: Was that directed to the national chief?
Senator Dyck: Whoever wishes to respond.
Mr. Atleo: I have a quick response, because perhaps the chiefs have thoughts about this. It's to respond to the crisis that rightfully has been reflected, particularly by Chief Hudson. He made that inference, that if this was happening in any suburb of a major city, I share the notion that there would be a human outcry here.
We had the special rapporteur from the United Nations visit recently, talking about the human rights crisis in this country, and this is one example. A light needs to be shone on the housing crisis in this country and for the needs to be responded to by First Nations in their own home territories, but there must be leadership and proper investment that reflects actual need.
The two recommendations I'm making are around supporting this committee's consideration of doing a full, in- depth study, but also looking at receiving some of these suggestions about supporting locally driven solutions, with a framework that allows that flexibility of no one size fits all.
Ms. Paul: I would like to add that if you listened to our presentations, the number one issue is overcrowding. It is across the country, not just in our region. I can speak about my region of Quebec, and that is an issue. That is the number one issue that we have to deal with.
Then there is the rehabilitation of the homes, which is a great need. That, again, is across the nation — the decontamination and mould issues, which are due to overcrowding. The focus has to be on the communities that are in great need of social housing. This is not being addressed. To me, if you are going to focus and pinpoint, the basis is those four points.
Mr. Hudson: I do have a solution to that, involving our communities. I have been thinking about this for quite some time. The bottom line is that we want to have long-term flood mitigation in place so that our communities are not repeatedly flooded. Each and every year, dating back to the early 1970s, when all this hydro development started, our community flooded pretty much every year; it's just a question of to which level.
In 2010 and 2011, we had major impacts throughout our community, with 480 homes being affected. What needs to happen immediately is that the government needs to follow through with its commitment — including Minister Strahl back then — to address each and every one of those 480 homes, whether it is the process of ready-to-move homes coming in. Obviously, we have many evacuees out there who want to come home. That is an immediate solution.
In terms of allowing for capacity and economic development to happen, we have a plan for building homes within the community, because we have that skill set. It is just a matter of having the resources available to carry out this plan. The other communities in the Interlake are in the process of negotiating, but they need to acquire the lands that are no longer available to them in terms of occupying those lands. The additions to reserve must happen so that they can look at expanding their community and building on lands that are not prone to flooding.
I also wanted to comment on social housing. I made this comment last week during the conference that took place. There is high unemployment within our communities. Certainly, social housing needs to be looked at. The shelter allowance issue needs to be consistent right across the country. We are finding that we have higher rates of unavailable units and overcrowding within the three Prairie provinces because it is not available. Yet, if you look at the other provinces that do have it available, the overcrowding is less. Certainly I know there are more housing units available for those people. The shelter allowance issue needs to be looked at.
Senator Dyck: Could you explain the shelter allowance a bit more? I am not familiar with it. It sounds as though there are regional inequities. It does not make a lot of sense if Ontario has access to a pool of funds or something that the Prairies do not have access to.
Mr. Hudson: It lacks consistency across the country. I know that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it is not being provided through the federal government and through our social programs, compared to the provincial shelter allowance levels. Also, within the Atlantic region it is not consistent. Within Ontario, Quebec and B.C., it is made available. They do have shelter allowance provided according to the provincial standards. That needs to be applied consistently throughout all of our provinces and territories.
The Chair: That is by AAND, correct?
Mr. Hudson: Yes.
Senator Raine: What is this, exactly? Is it a subsidy for housing that can be used in any way?
Mr. Hudson: It is used for people who do qualify under the social programs. A rental amount is available, called the ``shelter allowance,'' so they can help pay for rent. In this way, if we have that money available to look, for example, at financing a housing project, certainly those revenues would come in as a result of that shelter allowance being available. It makes it more affordable.
In terms of the social aspect, where we have high unemployment — in our community alone, probably 70 per cent of our people are unemployed — they do qualify for the social program. If we had the shelter allowance available, we could look at financing long-term some of the housing projects that are very much in need.
Senator Dyck: You were talking about how the on-reserve housing situation is so desperate. Yet, by and large the general public does not seem to be aware of what is going on. For a report coming from this committee, do you see a value in educating the general public as to what the overall picture is, so that other Canadians get a better understanding of what the situation really is? That is for whoever wishes to answer.
Mr. Atleo: I would absolutely support that notion. As part of your question earlier, you talked about the complexity. This has plagued First Nations-Canada relations for a long time. Simply to allow the eyes to glaze over and to dismiss this as too complex is, in essence, dismissing a tragic human rights crisis in this country. Canada has stood as a champion for human rights around the world, helping to draw attention to crises, and now it is time that that happened right here in our own backyard.
The issue of housing is one of many on the spectrum of challenges that First Nations face and for which we can draw parallels to other policy challenges. I have just drawn some, in areas like education and the need for adequate investment. It is an investment in this country. Supporting the capacity and innovations based on treaty rights so that nations themselves are driving those solutions is to create solutions that will work for the people in their territories, to design an approach that makes sense for them.
In the case of Peguis, you clearly have overlapping challenges with other things, like flood mitigation. That means there needs to be a plan for solutions, based on their treaty and title rights. So often there have been externally imposed, unilateral decisions on everything from where communities are located to the lack of consistency in decision making about displacement of water. You will have a First Nations community and a Trans-Canada Highway. What I saw in Calgary was these different jurisdictions creating a crisis that may not need to have occurred for elders in communities in Alberta, just this last summer.
The ideas that are being described here are anchored in treaty rights, the right for First Nations to design an approach that works for them.
I believe we cannot allow this just to be dismissed because it is too complex, and perhaps this committee can help there. The solutions are there. The idea of First Nations having the ability to drive their own solutions and for this country to realize that investing in safe homes will invest in young Jaden. He will have a better place to study, to be successful and to support the lifting up of his people. If we don't do this work now, senators, then we are pushing it down for future generations. A sense of urgency, I think, needs to be driven into this work and into the study that you are considering.
Senator Moore: Thank you all again for being here.
With regard to the education arrangement that was announced the other day, Chief Atleo, I am familiar with your service as the Chancellor of Vancouver Island University. I want to commend you on pushing education as the answer to so many of these questions. It truly is. If people think it is expensive, just think about the cost down the road of not pursuing it. I urge you to keep pushing that for your peoples and for the good of Canada.
I read the status report of the Auditor General, 2011, dealing with the federal housing initiatives. The first sentence states: ``Although the federal government takes the view that it does not provide housing support on reserves as a result of legislative or treaty obligations . . .''
The federal government says it does not, but it's clear that you and your organization and all of the First Nations believe that through treaty rights and other entitlements, housing is to be provided and that there is an obligation.
I read that; I look at your housing strategy that you passed in 2012, and I am trying to rationalize. When you deal with the federal government, is the 2012 strategy pushed? Is there an acceptance of it in the face of the federal government saying it doesn't have to provide housing? How does that work? What is the current status of what looks like an impasse to me?
Mr. Hudson: I haven't seen that report, but to provide a perspective, going back to the 1960s, that obligation as far as a treaty right to housing was the belief, and certainly was an agreement in terms of providing housing on First Nations. But we seem to be getting away from that treaty right to housing. Obviously, we are entering into a renter's market, market-based housing, and certainly people looking at buying their own home. I will state for the record, and certainly from my experience, I am the first chief in our community to mortgage my own home, and to allow others who cannot afford to look at receiving homes that we get, whether it is based on a treaty right or on other programs out there, because certainly they cannot afford that.
The fact is that our people firmly believe in that treaty right to housing and we seem to be getting away from it. I shared an example this past week at the housing conference. Because of the demand, we have 80,000 or 85,000 units. If you look at the dollar value of building those homes based on that right, and do the math, $150,000 is a minimum for a home in the community. You are looking at $12 billion in terms of addressing that need and certainly addressing the issue surrounding rights-based.
Again, and this is my opinion, we seem to be getting away from that treaty right to housing and passing those shared responsibilities on to the people themselves. When you have a community that has 70 per cent or 90 per cent unemployment, how are they going to market their own home? How are they going to mortgage their own home? I commented on that with regard to the shelter allowance issue. It is looking at getting away from that treaty right to pushing market-based housing. For us in Manitoba and certainly at Peguis, we have the belief and maintain that we have a treaty right to shelter.
I wanted to make one other note to extend that and utilizing our own resources as far as accommodating people. We do provide our own down-payment system to people on-reserve and off-reserve who can afford it, just to accommodate the demand and the need for housing. Again, it's no federal program; it's not a provincial program. It's created by our own community. The long-term solution to this issue is that we take control of our housing and our housing programs and work in partnership with the federal government in terms of what our solutions are versus the solutions coming from the federal government to us.
Senator Moore: Thank you, Chief Hudson. I want to ask you some questions about the number of people. You say that 2,000 people are still out of their homes since the last major flood, and you are talking about building new homes. Do you have sufficient lands within the reserve that are not prone to flooding so that you do have sites where new houses could be erected, so that these people have a new home to come back to and they don't have to worry about the next spring flood?
Mr. Hudson: Yes, we do have lands that are available outside of the flood zone. We have mandated that any new construction today has to happen outside of the flood zone.
I want to make you aware of some of the logistics. Sixty per cent of our land is lost as a result of continued flooding, and we made government aware of that. Obviously, there are additions to reserve policies in place that we are trying to accommodate in terms of adding to our reserve, but that process takes the better part of two-plus years to be able to realize. That window for adding to our reserve needs to be shortened.
Also, through our treaty land entitlement that we have in place, we have selected and purchased land adjacent to our reserve, which is separate from the additions to reserve. Under treaty land entitlement you cannot build on those lands until those lands are converted. That is a policy within the treaty land entitlement process.
Senator Moore: Could you explain that, please? Did you just say that if you add to the reserve you can't build on those lands until what?
Mr. Hudson: Under the additions to reserve you can, but that process takes a bit more time. Under treaty land entitlement, we have added 9,000 acres that we have purchased from an outside person, and we have bought lands adjacent to our reserve, but under the treaty land entitlement agreement and that process, you cannot occupy or build on those lands until they are converted to reserve land. That's a government policy. We've been trying to work through these issues so we can allow homes to be built out of the flood plain and to be built on lands that are added to our community.
Senator Moore: Do the lands that are not in the flood plain that you add to the reserve lands abut the lands that you already own that are not in the flood plain, or are they removed from it so that you have a patchwork rather than a common community enlargement?
Mr. Hudson: In our plan, we look at both where we are relocating and certainly wanting to look at moving them, but also any new construction. We would like to look at building on these lands that are added, but again, according to government policy under TLE, you cannot do that until the land is converted.
Senator Moore: Who makes that decision?
Mr. Hudson: I would say the federal government.
Senator Moore: What are the considerations that would take two and a half years to resolve?
Mr. Hudson: It's procedural; it's process, through their policy, and that policy needs to change.
The Chair: We did a study to try to break the logjam, Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Before I was on the committee; I understand.
Senator Raine: In this delay period, I can understand your frustration. We are well aware of the problems with the ATR.
In this process, are you proceeding with the development of the planning and the infrastructure development that are needed before you can actually build the houses so that when it finally gets unlocked you are ready to go?
Mr. Hudson: Yes, we have undertaken a comprehensive community plan, and we're also looking at a long-term housing and financing plan for all of this, but these barriers hinder us from proceeding.
Senator Raine: In the meantime, the cost of housing the 2,000 people who are still evacuated is falling to the federal government, I presume.
Mr. Hudson: Yes.
Senator Raine: Perhaps we can send a letter from the committee urging them to hurry up and not to wait until the study is finished.
The Chair: I'm sure that is possible.
Ms. Paul: I have a comment to make about the additions to reserve. The process is not simple and it is not easy. Speaking from experience, it took us over 10 years to get an addition to reserve for our reserve. There has to be a better way to work together to get these lands.
We are in the process of asking for another section to build waste water treatment, and there is always a block somewhere in the government. We can't build until those lands are transferred from federal lands. We need to look at that process.
Senator Sibbeston: We had the Auditor General before us last week, and he gave us a very objective, analytical review of the situation of housing on reserves. Apparently there was a study in 2003. At that time, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada noted a shortage of about 8,500 units. It is interesting because you estimate a backlog of 130,000. That is quite different from what the government said.
Another study was done in 2011, and the Auditor General basically says that conditions did not improve for First Nations since the study was done. His conclusion is that a number of systematic impediments stand in the way of the government's doing a better job on housing. These are a lack of clarity about service levels, a lack of a legislative base, a lack of an appropriate funding mechanism, and a lack of organization to support local service delivery.
In terms of his recommendation, he said in a polite way that this committee may wish to ask officials at Aboriginal Affairs whether their views regarding the structural impediments remain unchanged. He basically said we should approach the department. But in my view, the problem of housing for Aboriginal people is so severe that if we depend on the department and officials, it will take so long. As you know, things just inch along in government departments when they do things. So it seems to me the solution is to deal directly with the ministers and also the Prime Minister.
I was going to ask Grand Chief Atleo: Having been successful recently in your negotiations and discussions with the Prime Minister that resulted in substantial monies being made available for education — $1.9 billion, though it is two years off — do you think there is any possibility of the government's doing something with respect to housing? It will not get done from within the system. It needs a political will and decision by ministers and the Prime Minister to do something about housing. Do you think that is a possibility?
Mr. Atleo: Senator Green Raine's question about whether we can encourage this particular solution, in this case, to be responded to now, I think there is a connection between supporting that sort of approach. You have two chiefs that I am sitting beside who, in their respective areas — one based on a region, one based on a home territory — are ready to go with solutions. They are looking for a willing partner to carry out that work and not have it mired in existing policies and programs. Over 30 audits were done during the time frame around 2003 and shortly thereafter, all pointing to the fact that there is no long-term, predictable, sustainable, needs-based resourcing for areas, not just education, but housing, and that First Nations must be supported to drive those solutions going forward.
We also recently experienced the recognition that not only do we need to speak to this from a human rights crisis and health perspective, but also we have to begin quantifying the economics of poor health and of not having Jaden being supported to do his best in school. There are incredible consequences for this country. This is the time to respond to these needs. I have a sense of hope.
To link back to the earlier question, the Assembly of First Nations' draft National First Nations Housing Strategy was adopted by the chiefs; it was supported. I want to make it clear that the Assembly of First Nations is an advocacy organization. When the chiefs come together and suggest we need a comprehensive approach, we do so based on the acknowledgement that the rights belong right here with these chiefs. These are the heads of government in their respective territories, and my role is to support them. I am not the head of First Nations governments in Canada. Rightfully so, these chiefs have the responsibility to carry that work forward.
That is why we begin with Article 23 in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that our people ``. . . have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right . . . `` And there is a gap between what the federal government will describe when you hear Chief Hudson say, ``There is a treaty right.'' There is also a treaty right to education, and the federal government also did not have any way to describe, including through legislation, their responsibility to fund education.
That is the current conversation. It has to be done in accordance with the recognition of where those rights rightfully belong, and that is with First Nations and their respective territories — to design the solutions that will work for them.
You heard the idea of the chief describing how communities can work together to support solutions in areas like housing, such as the idea of a housing board. Make sure it is linked with flood mitigation. On the one hand, you are dealing with walking through the door of dealing with housing, but you see it relates to resolving the land question and treaty land entitlement.
The Assembly of First Nations does have a broad draft framework that the chiefs fully supported, and we have resolutions going back decades, calling for advocacy to break this funding gap issue.
I believe the answer is, yes; we need to illuminate the full spectrum of these challenges. But at the same time, we need to not wait for a study to be concluded; we need to move quickly to respond to solutions that are needed right now. We need to demystify this notion that the answer is not funding alone, but funding is part of the answer. That is what our study has suggested.
The solutions need to be jointly designed, and it has to be a collaborative approach. There is something here about having this be nation to nation — First Nations leaders who are responsible. Like the chief said — I think his example is an excellent one for me personally — he has a housing board, but the political leaders still have to govern and oversee success. To leave it just to the bureaucracies to resolve — we have over 30 audits saying that doesn't cut it. Implementation of treaty and the issue of land negotiations are things we have raised to the level of the Prime Minister, and then we talked about other major topics like the issues of violence, murdered and missing indigenous girls, and education.
But housing is absolutely fundamental here, if you are to support learners to be successful as well, when it comes to education or economics.
Senator Meredith: National Chief Atleo, I respect your leadership. Thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of First Nations. I have always said this to all who appeared before us — the leadership from First Nations.
You talk about your advocacy work, but at the high level, this is a humanitarian crisis. What has been the response as you bring this up to the government leadership? What has been the response moving toward?
Yes, you delegate to the chiefs in them advancing these causes that affect their various bands; however, what has been the response when you bring this issue up?
I think Senator Sibbeston raised this with you, and you somewhat skirted around it, but I need a direct answer because I believe that leadership has to move bureaucracy. I don't like bureaucracy. Too many times, when lives are at stake, it is not for us to pass paper from one hand to the next to the next. ATRs — we've heard it, 10 years. People's lives are at stake. What has been the response when you bring this up to the leadership, and how we will address these issues? We can sit around this table for hours and talk, but it's about how we move forward when you have got Jadens sitting and waiting, whose quality of life needs to be improved.
Mr. Atleo: I have two quick thoughts, and one is a sense of hope based on two recent developments. One was all- party support for Shannen's Dream. That meant all parliamentarians of all political stripes came together and said we have to act now for education.
After Parliament prorogued and came back, we saw the reconvening of an all-party committee on the issue of violence against indigenous women and girls. It falls short of what we're calling for, which is a full national public commission of inquiry on the issue of murdered and missing women, which is an incredible tragedy in this country, the likes of which the world is now beginning to learn and understand.
I'm hopeful as I sit here that today in the budget we'll see an important step forward on a real action on education where resources will be tabled and booked. We have not seen that. We're hoping we will see it. Perhaps we still have an incredible amount of work to do to make sure that going forward, First Nation treaty and title rights are respected and supported and that we gravitate quickly to support the investment in young Jaden's education. He still needs the proper housing to study within and he needs access to clean drinking water.
As Amnesty International rightfully pointed out when the special rapporteur was here, it is a grave human rights crisis. We have advocated with every single government, and we have now won over 150 court cases, affirming that the title and treaty rights the chiefs sitting beside me are speaking about are real. It's time for Canada to acknowledge this and to stop fighting in the courts. It is a $100-million expenditure on an annual basis when people like me are in court. We just finished winning a fisheries court case. These are connected. They are tremendously and inextricably linked, especially to the fate of our children right now. We need to see the status quo smashed. It has to be a moment of reckoning, and our people, in an unprecedented way, demonstrated to the country that the status quo we're experiencing is unacceptable. So it is a moment that we're calling for political leadership.
There are examples I can refer to that give me a sense of hope that there is beginning to be recognition that we're 4 per cent of the national population. We need to reach out to all Canadians to compel governments and political leaders of all stripes to come together and say we won't accept this any longer. Now is the time we will invest in First Nations communities in a way that respects and honours Aboriginal treaty rights and titles. There was a sense of déjà vu about the conversation when it came to education. There is a need for investment in housing and to gravitate, as Senator Raine said earlier, to move to the crises now and have these responded to, but embrace the need for a comprehensive plan involving and driven by First Nations to be supported as a way forward. We've got that framework. But more importantly for me as an advocate — because to correct the sentiment that you'd expressed it's not me delegating — the chiefs, by resolution, give me instructions to advocate.
I would suggest working with Chief Paul and the chiefs of Quebec and Labrador to have the plan they've been looking at, for their solutions to supported, and for Chief Hudson to support his work. He's being innovative and coming up with ideas, but he's working within a construct that does not support innovation when the resources aren't there. That's what the Senate can help reflect back to this country. It is a call to all Canadians.
Mike Holmes builds homes in places like Kenya, but he's standing with First Nations and saying, ``No, we're going to start building homes right here in Canada.'' We have Habitat for Humanity. We need support so they can build on- reserve, which they have yet to do. They have built in one settlement community in the Yukon, Champagne and Aishihik, and we also supported a building in the city of Ottawa for a grandmother so she can support her kids. That's Canadians in the mainstream stepping up and saying we're going to help out. This is the help that is required at this juncture.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here today. Chief Hudson, you mentioned that there were 80 people on a wait- list for mortgages in your community, and we heard earlier — and Chief Atleo alluded to it — about this First Nations Market Housing Fund, $300 million of allocated resources and the roughly 50 mortgages that have been issued.
Is the issue around qualifying for the 80 folks on the wait-list, or can you give us any insight into what the issue is?
Mr. Hudson: I guess the issue is around qualification in terms of the programs. I'll use one example. I know that under CMHC at one time because of our debt level in our community, we didn't qualify for ministerial loan guarantees. But under a second program, there is a program that doesn't require ministerial loan guarantees, and it's a matter of people qualifying based on fitting that program. It is the same thing under the First Nations Market Housing Fund.
We have 500 employees throughout our First Nation, and many are educators. We have our control over our own education system where we have probably 130 employees educated through our system and teachers that make $50,000 or $60,000 to $70,000 a year. They can and do qualify in terms of going to the bank and having these mortgages undertaken. Quite simply, if we do not fit some of those program criteria for one reason or another, we have undertaken working with the banks to look at doing our own mortgage delivery. But considering 80 all at once, for a financial institution to accept and take on that risk, they allow us to do maybe 10 or 15 at once but not all of them at once. We are working with the financial institutions to come up with opportunities like that for people to undertake, but it takes time because of the risks associated with those mortgages.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wallace: Chief Paul, it was news to me and I was impressed with the strategies that you developed through the AFNQL. The strategies and assessment are very detailed. With the reserves in Quebec and Labrador, you know very well what the needs are and you are able to look at solutions.
Chief Atleo has made it very clear, and I'm sure each of you would agree, that First Nations expect there to be their design, your design and driven solutions. Again, as Chief Atleo pointed out, the chiefs are the heads of their First Nation governments. When I think of that, it's an issue that I have had as we've gone through this: Who do you see as being responsible to lead and who is to follow? Who is to play the supportive role?
My sense has been that it seems at times to be somewhat muddled on who is to lead in terms of the federal government and who is to lead in terms of the chiefs and council and the AFN, which coordinates that. In any circumstances, if you don't know who is leading, it's hard to get to the goal line and find the solution.
I am wondering in all of this, regarding the various First Nation communities across the country, does the obligation to assess what the circumstances are and what the solutions are to be rest with the chiefs and councils of the various First Nation communities? Is the role of the federal government, through its different departments, to provide expertise, support, knowledge and, of course, funding to support that?
Am I correct that you see the chiefs and councils as being the ones who are to initiate those assessments, initiate what the solutions could be, and then look to support from the federal government departments, or is it the federal government that's expected to lead the initiatives?
Ms. Paul: That's a good question. It is really up to chiefs and councils to lead in their own communities, as Chief Atleo said. It's from nation to nation. We're in charge of our own nation. From an Aboriginal rights and title point of view, we see the federal government as being responsible for providing us with the housing and education needs that we have.
From Quebec's perspective, we work with our tripartite committee in addressing what those needs are. The Quebec assessment was done on every community, and every community was given back their respective assessment. As the chief of my community, I know exactly what my needs are. We also know the region's needs as well.
It is the chiefs' and councils' responsibility, along with the federal government, to work together in partnership to develop and address the needs in each community.
Senator Wallace: Right, but the federal government's role is more the supportive role; as you said, Chief Atleo, the chiefs are the heads of their First Nation government.
Ms. Paul: Yes.
Senator Wallace: Okay. That helps me.
Chief Atleo, after last week and the new act dealing with First Nations education, with great optimism, finally, at long last, they have that in place.
You mentioned that you saw parallels between what has been developed under the First Nations education act and how that might apply to the housing needs of First Nations communities. Could you expand on that? What would be some of the key elements of the approach in education that you think we, as a committee, could consider in terms of recommendations that would be appropriate to First Nations housing needs?
Mr. Atleo: Having the three witnesses here is a good example. We have Chief Hudson speaking specifically about Peguis and being able to relate to the committee his community's issues and needs and to understand better how to consider responding to the issue.
Then we have a regional perspective with the communities of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador being examples of a coordinated regional effort. In other parts of the country you will find regional and sub- regional responses. In some cases it will be at a tribal council level. When we gather, as we do, as the Assembly of First Nations twice a year, we ask the chiefs to consider how they might wish to coordinate their efforts. It results in a situation here, essentially, of a draft national housing strategy with many elements that includes contributions by every region.
How is it, then, that we can draw on the strength of coming together, notwithstanding incredible diversity — over 50 languages, regional diversity, et cetera — and you end up coming together and being able to have a sense of consensus that we have the right to design an approach that's based on regional and local treaty and title rights, needs and directives? There are differences among regions, as we just heard the chief talk about; there are differences in policy between Ontario and Quebec. It's important to understand what those variations may be, particularly when you have a crisis as acute as this one in housing.
You need to have a sense that there should be a direct and immediate response, first of all. How do you carry that out? We have been advocating for changes to what originally was referred to as any control of Indian education since the 1970s. Now we refer to it as First Nations control of First Nations education. Forty years later, the advocacy is still going on. You can draw parallels here to the issue of education, firstly, of the need to recognize that First Nations have plans. You have heard two chiefs talk about a local community — his own First Nation — as well as a regional approach. That should be part of a comprehensive response, then. What is it these regions need, and how do we jointly design an approach forward?
You heard Senator Sibbeston refer to previous Auditor General reports, where the federal government has one data set and First Nations have another data set. If you're going to plan jointly, you need to come together and design an approach where you uncover and demystify what the actual needs are. We have been working on that for education for 40 years. Let's not do that for housing for 40 years. To escalate the sense of urgency around this and demystify some of the immediate policy issues, but also to not shy away from the big issues, such as consecutive federal governments shying away from acknowledging the treaty rights, in this case, and the UN declaration right to design approaches to respond to shelter needs, is a right that First Nations have, just as we have the right to design an approach for education, and for the federal government to uphold its obligations. Right now, there is no way to express that.
Similarly in education, all we had was clauses under the Indian Act. There is nothing on the federal government side acknowledging the treaty right to education, which is made explicit, for example, in Treaty No. 3. That's why treaty implementation is one of the top pieces we have put before the federal government, over many years now. That is a major outstanding issue. We begin with recognizing that it is a treaty relationship. When the chiefs come and sit down with you as senators, they are sitting down with Canada, with their own First Nations.
This is a crude example, but the United Nations is a gathering of nations as well, and the Secretary-General gathers the United Nations periodically. The Assembly of First Nations comes together twice a year. Diverse nations come together looking to support each other, to advocate strategies in the relationship with the Crown in right of Canada.
It helps to have a point of entry where we see one another fundamentally, because we still have a legal disconnect between First Nations and Canada. That's a conversation for another day.
On this point right here, the plan is there on a broad framework; so I and the Assembly of First Nations and the Chiefs in Assembly can play a facilitating, convening role, but the solutions still need to be driven in the regions.
We have ideas around investment trust considerations, types of housing, local materials, partnership and collaborative initiatives that we have been alluding to here, such as the Holmes project and Habitat for Humanity. There are no implementation plans in place on the issue of housing, and there have not been; it has been year to year. How do you plan for long-term responses if you have discretionary year-to-year type of decisions being made?
This is not serving First Nations and it's not serving Canada. You, as the Senate, have an important opportunity to provide a very quick reflection, because First Nations have been doing this work for a long time and they have the plans available.
Ideas like a virtual housing centre of excellence to link capacity across the country, these are ideas that the chiefs have considered in a national draft housing strategy. The ideas are there, and we have two experts who I think would be willing to lend their expertise to a more comprehensive approach going forward.
The Chair: I would like to pursue the undoubtedly sensitive subject of legislation around the issue of building codes and inspections. We have heard evidence that a number of First Nations have not developed building codes, although I think it's within their authority, and also that inspections are not comparable to the highest standards that we would want. This has caused substandard units, mould and fire hazards. This is an area the committee is concerned about remedying.
National Chief Atleo, you made it clear that what I describe as a legislative sledgehammer is not the way to deal with this, but you have managed to figure out a way forward on education where there would be a basis for a legislative regime. Not to put the onus entirely on First Nations, there are all kinds of shortfalls with the federal government approach beginning with having two national agencies, CMHC and AANDC, responsible for housing and why is it divided. Given that there appears to be a problem with shortfalls in building codes and inspections, do you have any advice on how we can deal with that problem to make sure that when money is spent it's well spent and the builders don't get away with substandard housing or skating around inspections? Do you have any thoughts on that issue?
Mr. Atleo: I think the comments from the chiefs would be important on this as well. With respect to what has just transpired on education, the chiefs made it clear in assembly that five conditions needed to be met: recognition of First Nations control; real investment; moving away from unilateral ministerial oversight and in essence heavy-handedness; support for First Nations language and culture, which of course residential schools sought to take away; and ongoing, meaningful engagement.
The federal government has signaled — and I hope will confirm in the budget, by investment — that they heard the conditions of the chiefs. This is where there begin to be some parallels.
Unilateral imposition of legislation does not and has never worked. This is where we have a draft national framework. We have two chiefs with both a regional and a home nation set of solutions and ideas going forward. This, in my view, is the basis upon which to build the collaborative approach described in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You design an approach going forward that meets the kinds of standards that First Nations are describing. The federal government doesn't have a way to describe, for itself, an ongoing way to meet the housing requirements of First Nations. It is up to the federal government to be open and willing to fully collaborate in a meaningful way with First Nations to design approaches that respect and implement treaty rights and Aboriginal title and rights. That's not something that we have seen. We've seen some joint development of an approach — and the Specific Claims Tribunal comes to mind, which was an effort to jointly design a change regarding how specific claims are addressed — that resulted in a tribunal being established.
We are not without examples. On the issue of education, First Nations have been pressing for change to the relationship and implementation of the treaty right to education for 40 years. On the issue of housing and, as you put it, on the sensitive topic of legislation and the federal government, our experience recently is the introduction of legislation that is by and large unilateral, that does not come with resources. We've experienced that on some of the infrastructure bills, and it causes a great concern. That is not the answer going forward.
I think that if the Senate were to undertake a study that questions how to achieve a sustainable, fair, responsive, predictable funding arrangement with First Nations on housing, that should be part of the undertaking, part of the question, part of the engagement that you have with First Nations — preferably in their own home territories — so that you can see and help Canadians understand the urgency of this crisis.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a few opportunities for second round questions. I might ask you to make them brief, please.
Senator Meredith: Chiefs, thank you again for your presentations. I sense the frustration with respect to dealing with the federal government over the years. Chief Atleo, thank you for championing First Nations education. I am glad there has been a positive response because I strongly believe that the youth of our nation need to be educated and we need to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that Canada has to offer.
Going forward, though, in the absence of legislation — and three chiefs are at this table today — how do we then hold the chiefs and councils accountable? We heard the horror stories of homes being built inadequately, of repairs being done inadequately, where the inspector is reporting to the chief and they dictate. How do we ensure that the lives of First Nations people are protected? There is the mould situation in your home, Chief Paul, in the homes in Quebec. How do we ensure there is collaboration and proper code? No subdivision is built in Ottawa or in my community in Richmond Hill without proper codes to ensure there are proper sewage and drainage and all that. How do we hold those building homes on First Nations reserves accountable in the absence of legislation?
The Chair: I think the national chief addressed that question, did you not? Did you have anything to add either Chief Hudson or Chief Paul? I think what you meant to say, Senator Meredith, was inspectors report to the builder, not to the chief.
Senator Meredith: Sorry, the builder, but I understand there is some collaboration. Chief Hudson, I would like to hear your perspective. You seem progressive with the ideas you come up with, such as geothermal and solar use, which I fully support and which would allow these homes to be built to accommodate First Nations and to be built properly so they don't run into these problems that are happening.
Mr. Hudson: In the absence of legislation, we are held accountable by our community. We're the first ones to hear if that home isn't built properly. It's something that we address through our housing authority that we have put in place. It is not legislated currently by the federal government, but it's something that we practise.
To take it a step further, with respect to geothermal and building capacity, this innovation helps with the air circulation within the housing envelope so mould doesn't come into place. Outside of our communities, I know that when we do build that capacity not only are these people able to address our units within the community — and we have about 60 units now within our community that are geothermal; we're coming up with these solutions on our own — but in terms of being held accountable, we hear from the people directly. It's through our housing authority that we address the situation.
In terms of inspections, we ran into some problems with the way things were done in the past, but now we have our inspections done by outside groups rather than by people within the community. We're changing that in terms of having our people who are capable of doing that inspect other communities because obviously there are close relationships there. We try to separate that between the inspectors and the people building. We recognize that are problems there and we then solve them on our own. I think that is a solution.
The Chair: I'm going to give Senator Beyak an opportunity now.
Ms. Paul: To answer your question, in most of the communities that I deal with, we do follow the building code of Canada. One area that was kind of fuzzy for us was the inspectors. We were under the impression that CMHC was sending their inspectors in. They came into our communities and we relied on their expertise as chiefs to say yes, this is up to code. We took their word because they were the inspectors. I guess in some cases that was not really the case. Those were some of the gaps that we were having for First Nation communities.
Senator Meredith: Thank you.
Senator Beyak: My question is about the education component. Congratulations on the latest initiative.
I have a dear old friend in Dryden who is 92 years old. She had a great suggestion. Native people are so artistic — so good with sculpting, carving, drawing, bead work and everything — have you considered putting a large portion of your education funding into those talents and for educating people on how to market them, how to open businesses and how to access funding? It's a worldwide market, and I think it might be a good idea that she had.
The Chair: Senator, we will let your valuable advice remain on the record, but we really should be focusing on housing today, so I will respectfully move on to Senator Greene Raine, but thank you for the idea.
Senator Raine: Thank you to all of you. This has been a great session.
Chief Paul, when the AFN provided this database, how did you approach it? Would that be something we should look at to recommend that it be done nationally? Was Chief Atleo suggesting that in his first point, that we find out about the scope and the gap through a national inventory?
Ms. Paul: Yes; I agree. It comes directly from the community so you get the exact picture of every community. It could be done nationally so that you have the exact picture of every community. As the senator suggested at the beginning, it is a good educational tool to educate the people of Canada; it really is. You would then have that picture at that moment, and you could see if there are improvements. It shows the real numbers.
Even with community development, we have not talked about it but in Quebec we have communities that have no running water, no hydro; they live in tiny shacks. Nine of these shacks could fit in this room. Those are the realities, and the people of Canada are not aware of those realities. That is a good exercise that could be done across Canada, and it would be beneficial to everyone.
Senator Raine: Could you send us further information on how you did that?
Ms. Paul: Yes. Just give me the information on whom to send it to.
The Chair: I will have to draw this meeting to a close, but I want to say on behalf of the committee how useful and helpful all the presentations were.
We did have representation of our staff at the housing conference that you organized last week, and I would also like to pledge that we look forward to working with the AFN in identifying places that we should go — as you mentioned, national chief, it can be very enlightening — places where there are urgent implementation opportunities, as you suggested. As a committee, we will look forward to ongoing collaboration with the AFN in this extremely important and urgent matter. Thank you very much, everyone. It has been very helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)