Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 9 - Evidence - November 18, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:35 a.m. to study challenges relating to First Nations infrastructure on reserves.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome back to 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, via CPAC or the Web. I am Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. I have the privilege of chairing this committee on Aboriginal Peoples of the Senate of Canada. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. This morning we are hearing testimony, on a specific order of reference, authorizing us to examine and report on the challenges and potential solutions relating to infrastructure on reserves. This includes housing, community infrastructure, innovative opportunities for financing and more effective collaborative strategies.
Over the course of many months, we have conducted a series of hearings focusing on housing. Now we are embarking on our in-depth study of infrastructure.
Today I am pleased that we will hear from representatives from the Assembly of First Nations on this important topic. Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Thank you, chair. Good morning, Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Dyck: Good morning, I'm Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Committee members, I know you'll help me in welcoming our first witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations: Mr. Peter Dinsdale, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Irving Leblanc, Acting Director, Housing and Infrastructure.
Gentlemen, we look forward to your presentation, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed.
Peter Dinsdale, Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations: My name is Peter Dinsdale. I am a member of the Curve Lake First Nation in Ontario, an Anishnaabe First Nation, and I am currently residing in Ottawa. My role is as the Chief Executive Officer of the Assembly of First Nations, which is the national advocacy and political organization for First Nation governments.
I'm joined here today by Mr. Irving Leblanc, our special adviser on housing, infrastructure and emergency management issues. I want to thank the Senate for the opportunity to appear before you and certainly take an opportunity to acknowledge that we are gathering on unceded Algonquin territory.
This committee has heard from a number of witnesses to this point, including former National Chief Atleo and other representatives from the AFN Chiefs Committee on Housing and Infrastructure, which includes Chief Madeline Paul of Eagle Village First Nation and Chief Glenn Hudson of Peguis First Nation.
We don't pretend to have all the answers of how to alleviate the critical issues of housing and infrastructure in our communities. There is one theme that prevails and that is the need for more funding. While we've heard loud and clear that "more money simply is not the answer," we must also state that without the needed investments, we cannot address the current crisis in housing and infrastructure faced by First Nation communities.
Chiefs-in-Assembly have supported the creation of the National First Nations Housing Strategy, grounded in inherent and treaty rights, to clearly secure adequate, accessible, affordable housing and outline how all parties can work collaboratively to achieve desired outcomes. First Nation designed and driven solutions respond to the unique circumstances and needs of First Nations. We must be given the opportunity to develop and participate in these solutions.
The way forward is to provide the resources to First Nations and First Nation organizations to develop the technical, financial and management capacity to support the mechanisms. Through various studies conducted by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we know that over 131,000 new homes are required over the next 25 years — 131,000. During this time, close to 12,000 homes will need to be replaced due to deterioration and a further 10,000 will require major repairs or renovations. Estimates of the capital investment needed to address the future housing needs on reserve are in the range of $23 billion in new housing construction to accommodate projected household and family growth, and over $282 million in incremental renovation investment to maintain these existing homes. Keep in mind that this is just housing.
The First Nations infrastructure gap is much more acute. In the critical area of water and waste water, we know that $4.7 billion is needed over the next 10 years, or $470 million annually. Current investments of $165 million per year fall far short and create both ongoing health and safety challenges in First Nation communities.
As another indication of this funding shortfall, as of September 30, 2014, there were 138 drinking water advisories affecting 97 First Nation communities across Canada, excluding British Columbia. Additionally, as of June 3, 2014, we know there were 29 First Nation communities across British Columbia with drinking water advisories. A total of 126 First Nation communities, or about 20 per cent of all First Nation communities, in Canada are under drinking water advisories.
We do not have a clear assessment of or quantification of the overall community infrastructure needs. However, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities "Canadian Infrastructure Report Card 2012" shows estimates of replacement costs of $171.8 billion nationally. Clearly, a similar study is needed for First Nation communities to adequately understand the scope of what is needed and how to truly address it.
Budget 2013 confirmed approximately $7 billion over 10 years in First Nations infrastructure. We believe that $700 million annually is insufficient to address the backlog we just described. On many occasions, we have brought up the impact of the 2 per cent cap on Indian programming that was imposed in 1996. Taking inflation into account and the increasing costs of construction, the funding, in effect, has levelled off and getting an accurate picture of the situation will help us to move forward on all solutions.
We recently obtained an internal federal government document entitled Cost Drivers and Pressures — the Case for New Escalators. I should note that this was obtained under disclosure in a child welfare complaint against inequity in the funding of child family services on reserve. This document revealed that because the price and volume pressures are greater than the 2 per cent annual escalator currently permitted, Aboriginal Affairs is redirecting funding to infrastructure programs to meet the pressures within income assistance, child and family services, education, governance and emergency management. It goes on to say that the outcome of this is the inability to sustainably provide province-like services on reserves. The presentation goes on to say that over the past six years, Aboriginal Affairs has reallocated approximately $505 million in infrastructure dollars to social, education and other programs to try to fill the shortfall in those areas. In addition to the 2 per cent cap imposed on First Nations since 1996, funds are actually being diverted from critical infrastructure to fund these programs.
Senators, I'm sure we can all agree that this is an unacceptable situation. There have been lots of discussions of potential federal legislation to develop various standards on First Nations. First Nations want to build the highest standards of safety and environmental sustainability, but imposing standards through legislation is not the answer and never has been the answer. With the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, we've seen the imposition of standards with no new funding or capacity to implement. Frankly, this is a dangerous exercise that simply puts First Nation communities and citizens at risk.
Another area of innovation to be explored includes things such as public-private partnerships to provide capital to address First Nation infrastructure needs. We can look at First Nations themselves actually controlling their housing programs, meaning handing over the management of the housing programs from Aboriginal Affairs and CMHC to First Nations. We can look to our neighbours to the south and the HUD model of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whereby the U.S. federal government works with tribes to provide housing through the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act. This act created the Indian Housing Block Grant, under which tribes have the flexibility to design, develop and operate their own affordable housing programs based on local needs and customs.
Any innovations would need to take place with sufficient resources to support our community housing and infrastructure. This is possible; we simply need the drive and political will to make it happen.
Senators, you have a very important task in front of you and we look forward to working with you to implement any recommendations you come up with for the future of our children and the generations to come.
I would say that we have an incredible resource with us here, Mr. Leblanc, who is one of the first First Nations engineers ever to graduate in Canada. He has a long and illustrious career and lots to share, so I'm pleased that he's here with me to help address any questions you may have.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dinsdale.
Colleagues, we have some speaking notes in English that I've taken the liberty of circulating. Could I have a motion to accept those speaking notes on the basis that they will be translated?
Senator Sibbeston: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Sibbeston, seconded by Senator Greene Raine. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Leblanc, do you wish to make some remarks to the committee?
Irving Leblanc, Acting Director, Housing and Infrastructure, Assembly of First Nations: Not at this time, senator. I'm here to support questions and provide any information that's required.
The Chair: I'll just take the liberty of asking the first question.
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dinsdale, on the awesome challenges you've outlined. You mentioned the P3 program and suggested that that kind of approach is the way to go and has provided some models worth looking at in the United States. I understand that P3 Canada announced the first P3 project with a First Nation in September 2014; I believe it's the first one that succeeded. It involved $12.94 million in financing for a hydroelectric project in the Namgis First Nation in British Columbia. Would you or Mr. Leblanc have any comments on how this opportunity could be better utilized? It seems that it hasn't been taken up too successfully so far, although I understand that First Nations have been eligible since the fund was established. Would you have any comments on that, please?
Mr. Dinsdale: About a year ago, last February, we held a national infrastructure and housing conference where P3 partnerships was one of the topics discussed. There is lots of trepidation and concern about that kind of approach as a public-private partnership has many partners and components to it. I think First Nations are wary that various treaty rights would be infringed by the various economic models, so there is a lot of caution. That probably explains the lack of pick-up that you're describing, Mr. Chair.
It's something we acknowledge will have to be part of the conversation as we move forward, and we want to make sure that we do it right. We see some tentative first steps, and conferences are taking place as well, where Mr. Leblanc is participating.
Mr. Leblanc: A private-public partnership is a method of providing infrastructure in a lot of areas of the municipal field. Unfortunately, the concept of a private-public partnership is very new to First Nations. There is a need to provide support awareness to First Nations, as we did during our conference and at the recent conference of the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships held in Toronto. There was a First Nations component to that, which was essentially the second year they've ever done that.
The P3 environment in Canada is starting to take notice of the potential First Nations projects in P3. However, there are misconceptions and misunderstandings about P3, which are in large part driven by some failures that we know about in the U.S. and Great Britain of P3 projects. I think there is a more negative view of P3s recently. In Alberta, they tried to push 18 schools through a P3. There's a need for awareness and information with First Nations.
I do believe that P3s offer an option to First Nations to be able to put infrastructure down more quickly. For example, there is a P3 project in the works in Manitoba where they are bundling four schools as a P3 project. In my view, looking at the shortfall or the shortage of infrastructure money, this is an opportunity to put four schools on the ground in a shorter period, whereas, going the normal capital planning process, I would say it would take maybe 20 years to put four schools down in First Nations communities. From that point of view, I see there are benefits to it.
There are some drawbacks to it in terms of the funding agreements process. Right now, as you know, funding agreements for most communities are one year or five years, and I think AANDC is starting to look at 10-year agreements. However, P3s need a 20-year to 30-year payback, so there's a great need for the federal government to look at modifying the funding agreements and their commitment to these projects, which I believe they would be looking at with that Manitoba project.
The other thing that Mr. Dinsdale mentioned is the reluctance of First Nations to hand over control or management of their facilities. Essentially, a P3 does come in and build, design and operate the asset. However, for example, if it's an education authority or a school, the education authority or school board still has control over what happens in there. I kind of do an analogy of our own office at 55 Metcalfe where somebody else owns the building, looks after it and maintains it. We don't care what happens there with whoever looks after it. We still function within that facility and do what we have to do.
P3s normally scare people away because they're not interested in anything below $80 million, so they are $80 million to $100 million projects. That's why in Manitoba they're bundling the four schools to be able to make that level of interest for the financial people that are going to be involved in these.
That's our understanding of P3s.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your very clear presentations this morning. I'm going to start my questioning off with regard to the funding shortfalls. You gave us some quite astounding numbers, and I'm going to review them briefly.
You were saying that just in water and waste water, $4.7 billion over 10 years is needed, which is about $470 million a year, but currently there's only $165 million allocated. In Budget 2013, $7 billion was allocated over 10 years, which is about $700 million per year. Over the last six years, $505 million has been reallocated. I am not sure whether that figure means $505 million over the six years or over each year, so that would be one question.
Since there are such big shortfalls and there may be opportunities in P3, the question is, what do we do? As a related question, to your knowledge, how should things be prioritized? Do you know of any method that the department uses to prioritize where the money should go? You're talking about the shifting of money from infrastructure to other needs, such as education and social welfare.
There are quite a number of questions there. I was really wanting you to expand a little more on the shortfalls, what can be done, how you pick out priority areas and who should be involved in making those decisions.
Mr. Dinsdale: With respect to the reallocation question, that $505 million was over the six years. It was actually growing each year. It was getting bigger. The amount they're transferring was not getting smaller. It is contained in the disclosure documents, and I'm sure you have access to them. If not, we can make sure the committee clerk has them and can share them afterwards.
One of the easiest questions to answer is the 2 per cent cap. It's been there since 1996. Our population has grown. With inflation alone, the costs have grown. It simply has not caught up. Each year, we fall further and further behind, and each year the department has to take from infrastructure and transfer to areas like education and other social programs in order to address them.
Maybe I can ask Mr. Leblanc to talk about some of the specifics of the $131,000 housing and the water and waste water numbers, but I think it just demonstrates a chronic underfunding generally.
Mr. Leblanc: Senator Dyck, the $505 million is, as was said, over six years. It's presented annually in AANDC's National First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plan and the documents they have on their website. In there, they identify the planned reallocations. For example, in 2013-14, which is available on their website, the planned reallocation is $221.178 million. If you go back over several years, you'll see various numbers on that. For example, 2012-13 is $171 million. As noted in the information, this is money coming out of infrastructure capital dollars that is now not available to do capital works for First Nations. There's no indication that that has ever been paid back or replaced; it's just taken to other programs. It's part of the whole problem of there just not being enough money to deal with all the needs of First Nations, whether it's housing, infrastructure, operation and maintenance, or minor capital projects. That is a process that has been going on for quite a while.
The other question was who should be involved in making the decisions. One of the other things that we deal with is the inconsistency across the country in the various regional operations. Some regions do have a prioritization committee where First Nations organizations do have an opportunity to comment or affect decision making on priorities.
It's similar to when I was working for the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation many years ago. We looked at taking over the regional capital budget, and it involved quite a study. The end result was that we decided as an organization that we wouldn't want to do that. Why would anybody take on a program that is underfunded? That's still in place today.
If you ask First Nations organizations and individuals to sit down and prioritize projects, they're making a decision over other communities, so that's a difficult spot to be in. That's probably an area that falls on the government's lap to prioritize because they're the ones who are managing an underfunded budget. They are the ones who need to make those tough decisions.
That's not to preclude First Nations. Many First Nations come directly to the minister's office to try and intercede or advocate for their projects, but it's a tough area with shortfalls and trying to make decisions about who will get the project next.
Senator Dyck: If I could follow up on this with regard to the shortfall, has anyone calculated what the difference would be simply if the 2 per cent cap had not been in place, let's say to compare it to what has happened with regard to infrastructure funding to provinces or municipalities? It's been a 2 per cent cap since 1996. If that cap hadn't been there, what would the funding be today? As I understand it, not only was there a 2 per cent cap put on, but when the cap was removed for the provinces, there was a top-up.
Mr. Dinsdale: Yes. The other parallel is housing and the various housing transfers, which as agreed is 6 per cent plus escalators, depending on the year. I don't have the final number here, but we can provide a written response to the clerk. There are some assumptions: Is it 6 per cent or 8 per cent or is it a top-up? We can provide an assessment of what it would be.
Senator Dyck: Would you provide us with those numbers?
Mr. Dinsdale: Absolutely, I would be happy to.
Senator Dyck: You also mentioned legislation in the U.S. It sounds as though you think it's good legislation. If it is good, would you recommend that we do something like that?
Mr. Dinsdale: I think anything that helps self-determination for First Nations is something you should look at. Ultimately, we're talking about particular infrastructure components of our communities. We are in this nation- building mode, which requires critical infrastructure. Infrastructure can be assessed and provided in a variety of forms, and this one would seem to make sense and require important examination.
The Chair: To follow-up on Senator Dyck's question, the 2 per cent cap has endured both Liberal and Conservative governments to date. We're not here to talk about education, but there was an acknowledgment by the current government in the proposal around a First Nations education act to lift the 2 per cent cap for education. I'm well aware that there's an election under way and that that issue resulted in the resignation of the former grand chief.
As the CEO of the Assembly of First Nations, is there still some possibility, in your view, that the subject of reform in First Nations education and renewed funding, which I think would be a precedent for infrastructure if we can find a way to make it occur, will have continuing dialogue? Is there a possibility that this issue is still open and will be worked on in the coming year?
Mr. Dinsdale: That's charged, as I'm sure you can appreciate from a number of perspectives. From my side, it is charged politically, as we will have an election for national chief, as you indicated, and candidates have differing opinions on it.
I will tell you that we have a chiefs' committee on education that continues to meet and a national technicians committee that continues to meet. They have provided advice or recommendations in terms of a path forward, in which they include a number of elements for reform, as Minister Valcourt requested.
Frankly, the question also has to go back to your side: Is the Prime Minister willing to accept his agreement that there is chronic underfunding in education? Is he willing to accept that there is a need for infrastructure development for new schools across the country? Is the Prime Minister willing to fund critical areas around second-tier services in creating structures across the country? There was a political discussion between former National Chief Atleo and the Prime Minister. Our side has had some consequences, and now we're in this void.
There are challenges on our side in terms of how our political leadership views it; and there are challenges on your side. Does he really want $1.9 billion for education infrastructure to simply wash away, or is there a willingness to come together, to meet and find a way forward? I can't answer that question. I can only describe the situation we find ourselves in.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm sure you don't mind my raising the subject. Just as you said, I can't answer on behalf of the government. I think it is not unrelated to this discussion since some of those funds that were discussed related to infrastructure, specifically schools.
Let's leave it at that. Thank you for that information.
Senator Dyck: Since you brought up education, these internal documents said, according to the press, that the 2 per cent cap was inadequate. The internal memo says it should be 4.5 per cent. This has all been coming out in the news over the last week, just to put that on the record as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Enverga: I was struck by something. On our trip, we noticed that it's never one-size-fits-all with respect to housing and infrastructure. You also mentioned the U.S. federal government work with American tribes to provide housing under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act. Can you explain more so that we can have a better understanding of how we can do the same thing in Canada?
Mr. Leblanc: I can provide some information on that.
In 2011, a B.C. First Nation organization hosted the World Indigenous Housing Conference, where we first had the opportunity to listen to the chair of that group describe how they work with tribes in the U.S. in terms of their housing self-determination. Subsequently, we invited them to speak with us via teleconference. We should have shared the PowerPoint presentation that he gave, as it explains a bit more. Essentially, it's a federal-tribal relationship where funds are transferred directly to the tribal organizations which then manage the funds and do what is needed for housing for their members. They manage and operate the housing programs. There is no middle person involved.
It's worth looking at, but the caveat is that there must be adequate funding. I believe AANDC and CMHC made their presentations. Between the two of them, they manage about $250 million — $125 million for AANDC and $125 million for CMHC. That's managing an underfunded program. Part of looking at that model would be to make sure that it is adequately and sustainably funded.
Certainly, as Mr. Dinsdale mentioned, self-determination, which is in the title of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act, is worth looking at.
Senator Enverga: Are you saying that the U.S. federal government provides enough funding and that we should follow their way?
Mr. Leblanc: I don't know if the funding is sufficient in the U.S. model, but I would think it probably requires some thought as to how much is funded. Certainly in our situation, funding for housing is simply not sufficient. In looking at where that funding would come from, there have been discussions about the funds that AANDC and CMHC manage today as a start. For it to be viable, it would need more funding.
The Chair: Mr. Leblanc, may I ask you to kindly share the World Indigenous Housing Conference PowerPoint presentation with the committee, through our clerk?
Mr. Leblanc: I will do that. It was a follow-up teleconference we had with the director there. I'll share it.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: I know that all of us are grateful for the steerage towards the U.S. model as one of a number of potential solutions that we may need to look at.
On that subject, do you have any sense of housing shortage numbers in the United States? Are they in as bad shape as we are or are they better or worse? Do you have any sense of how housing stacks up in the U.S.?
Mr. Leblanc: I could not really venture a guess as to their numbers, but I believe they are possibly in the same situation as we are.
Senator Tannas: Mr. Dinsdale, I appreciate that this is sensitive, but I want to try to get a handle on it, if we can. We've done some travel and we heard in various places the notion of treaty rights to housing. We didn't hear it in other places. It didn't seem that that was an issue. Do you have any sense that you could give us on what percentage of the 600-plus First Nations would be of the formal view that housing is a treaty right versus those that would not take that view? We need to be cognizant of this as we come forward with solutions, because if we come forward with solutions and then bump into the notion that it's all a treaty right, then the innovative financing solutions, and so on all of a sudden evaporate, or have the potential to. I would be interested in any kind of colour you can give us around this particular issue.
Mr. Dinsdale: Frankly, treaties are the fundamental basis on which we view the relationship between our nations and the Crown as expressed now by the federal and provincial governments. If you ask that type of question to any First Nation across the country, they would tell you, "Yes, we view housing as one of our treaty rights."
Of course, treaties are complicated. We have peace and friendship treaties, a series of pre-Confederation treaties, after which a series of numbered treaties took place across the West, and now we have a series of modern-day treaties, which all have various elements. All have implementation issues, but that's for a different committee another day.
If you asked them, I think they would tell you that housing is a treaty right and a human right. If housing does come up as a human right, I'm sure they would articulate it in that manner, which various UN conventions have confirmed.
In terms of how to move forward, if you want to do other models, there is an important political dialogue that needs to take place with communities, saying, "Respecting your assertion of the treaty right, respecting that fully, and not meaning to deviate from that in any way, are we able to move forward with this? It is not meant to usurp the treaty right in any manner. Is there a political will to move forward with these other arrangements?" That may be a path forward. We have seen that work in other areas.
I think the more important conversation is around treaty implementation, frankly, to pull that issue off the table so you can move forward on a bunch of these issues in a modern context. That's the challenge. We talk about reconciliation with respect to residential schools. The reconciliation is a broader concept than that. I'm talking about restitution. How do we reconcile and reconstitute our original nations? I think that's the work we're involved in today, and that's where we get caught up in all these policy areas.
How do we resolve these relationships and protocols while moving forward in different ways? I think there is one path. Coming forward and being cognitive of it and addressing it early on is critical in terms of how these relationships evolve and develop.
In terms of the colour, I think every community would ascribe a right of that nature if you asked them in that manner. Some are more prepared to move forward in other creative arrangements respecting that the treaty right exists, and others want to resolve the treaty right before moving forward. It's a matter of a political relationship as much as anything.
Senator Tannas: As you say, the funding issues and the way in which we come to the agreement can be respectful, and that can be set aside. Where we found it was actually in individuals who refused to pay rent for their house, saying, "No, I have a treaty right to free housing, so I'm not paying a nickel." Many others did not have that problem at all. They were dealing with it with their individual members, and members were paying rent or other forms of ownership. I just wondered how prevalent that was. We didn't see very many places, but on that idea of down to the individual person saying, "I'm not paying a nickel's worth of rent because it's a treaty right," do you have any idea what percentage that might be, or am I asking too much?
Mr. Dinsdale: I don't have a percentage, by any means. It's a growing sense. It's a part of the rebirth that saw articulated in 2012 in Idle No More, and we are seeing articulated in the kinds of political dialogues that are taking place across the country. It is very much a political response and it can and should be respected.
In those communities, many treaty nations want to have a nation-to-nation dialogue with Canada on issues like housing. Treaty 4 would be prepared to come to the table, I'm sure, on an issue around housing, working with the federal government. I don't know if they've ever been asked in that manner. It is devolving down to the individual to defend the treaty rights for their entire nation. That's how they see their role, as defenders of their treaty rights for that entire nation. Again, I think it's a part of the political rebirth we're in right now and something we all have to work through.
My advice, frankly, would be to have those direct political relationships and protocols with those treaty areas.
The Chair: I was tempted to ask you to follow up further on that. You called on us to engage in a national First Nations housing strategy. Is that what you were just suggesting about the nation-to-nation dialogue on housing? I am just looking at page 2 of your presentation.
Mr. Dinsdale: The Chiefs-in-Assembly passed a national housing strategy for the Assembly of First Nations to work on. That's what I was referring to, and perhaps I could ask Irving to talk about that.
Mr. Leblanc: The National First Nation Housing Strategy was supported by the Chiefs-in-Assembly. It was presented to them, and they endorsed it. The strategy is based on a lot of discussion that went on about treaty rights and respecting the desires of First Nations to move forward on housing, but it has many components to it. It includes developing relationships with other organizations. For example, we have a partnership agreement with Habitat for Humanity. We have a relationship with the Holmes Foundation. In small part, these are areas that support the building of homes on First Nations. The other prominent one is Frontiers Foundation. That's one of the components of the strategy.
Another one is to continue to advocate for better housing and more resources for First Nations.
The other one is to develop supporting documents. One of the most recent ones that AFN was part of was the Atikameksheng/Holmes Foundation/AFN project that was developed, what we call the First Nations Sustainable Development Standards. It's a four-volume document funded in part by the First Nations Market Housing Fund to develop these documents so First Nations can have access to various parts of that document. Part of our strategy is to work with other organizations to provide supporting documents so they can establish regulatory regimes in the community, operating authorities. That forms part of that.
Some of these are supportive, but really the big issue is to find ways of providing additional housing to address the housing issue with First Nations. That's our biggest advocacy and facilitation issue.
Facilitation, as I mentioned, includes looking at other countries like the U.S., with their HUD model, and possibly even looking at other countries. How does Australia deal with their indigenous population? That is all part of our strategy, which keeps on going. It's found on our website too, by the way.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Moore: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
When I look at these numbers on page 3 and 4, they are huge. We've had various numbers presented to us, by various witnesses, as to the current number of new homes needed, those projected, and the costs.
Mr. Dinsdale, on page 3, I think your information comes from studies conducted by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. How were those studies done? What was the involvement of the 633 First Nations in Canada? Were they involved in the accumulation of these numbers? How current are they? When was the study done?
Mr. Leblanc: The report was shared with us by Aboriginal Affairs. It's something that was done on a regular basis by one of their consultants, Stewart Clatworthy. AANDC commissioned the study and provided it to us in 2012-13. It's current to about 2013. The base year of that study is 2010. Within the 2010 to 2034 timeframe — 25 years — they identified that 131,000 homes would be needed and additional homes would need to be replaced due to deterioration and major renovation.
It was done using information that's readily available. First Nations were not consulted on this study. It was more of a desktop exercise, where Mr. Clatworthy accessed AANDC information on the number of homes, population and overcrowding. One of the big areas that he looked at was how many houses, as you probably saw in Manitoba, have multi-generational families living in one house, for example, 12, 13, 14, or 15 people living in a house that is meant for four people.
He also looked at what would be required to alleviate the overcrowding problem and saying that if we move these families out of the house, then how many more will be needed. It looked at the population growth, relieving overcrowding, and the conditions of the homes. This included the houses that needed to be replaced, and major renovations, which could be quite substantial.
It was based on Aboriginal Affairs information. He did it in two ways. He also looked at Statistics Canada information. If you wish, we can share that study with you.
Senator Moore: It would be good if you could give that to the clerk of the committee.
That study was done in 2010 and the First Nations received a copy. Who received it? Was it the AFN? Where would it be delivered? It came to your office?
Mr. Leblanc: Yes.
Senator Moore: That was sometime in 2012-13?
Mr. Leblanc: That's correct.
Senator Moore: The First Nations were not consulted?
Mr. Leblanc: No, as far as I understand, the methodology was to use information from the desktop — available information from Aboriginal Affairs.
Senator Moore: Was that the same basis of the document that reported on the area of water and waste water?
Mr. Leblanc: No, the national engineering assessment was actually done through site visits and by consultants, where they actually visited a high percentage of First Nations communities. They did a walk-through of the water and waste water facilities and assessed them.
Senator Moore: When was that done, Mr. Leblanc?
Mr. Leblanc: The report was released in July 2011.
Senator Moore: Senator Dyck touched on my thoughts on the 2 per cent cap. You're going to get us information on the U.S. situation, whereby the tribes have the flexibility to design and develop their housing projects.
Mr. Dinsdale, on page 7 of your brief, you said that imposing standards through legislation is not the answer.
This is a dangerous exercise that simply puts First Nations communities and citizens at risk.
Do you want to expand on that?
Mr. Dinsdale: It's pretty evident that the Safe Clean Water Drinking Act provided various standards that First Nation communities and operators had to adhere to. They are new standards, which are higher than those that currently exist, which are being applied on First Nations.
Without funding, how are they to pay for the training, hire the people with the qualifications and maintain and sustain those systems? They were simply not funded.
It would be like telling you that you have to come to work every day in a brand new Mercedes Benz without providing you any more money to do so. Then you are held accountable for not coming into work in that brand new Mercedes Benz. I'm not sure what communities are supposed to do.
Senator Moore: I was glad that Senator Tannas asked about the matter of housing being a treaty right and that some want it, whereas a number of them said that we want self-ownership of our homes. If the First Nations were completely self-governing and were dealing nation-to-nation with Canada, how would you handle this?
Mr. Dinsdale: It would be the same way that other jurisdictions in this country handle these things. I think that we have a fiscal imbalance in this country, where things like natural resources — we're getting into a different area, but I'm happy to go down the rabbit hole, briefly. If you consider the current fiscal framework provided to First Nations, they are funded through contribution agreements. The contribution agreement that will fund a festival in your riding is the exact same contribution tool used to fund education, housing and waste water in First Nation communities. It's no different.
Irving talked about the need for private-public partnerships, but engaging in long-term planning is also an important and critical component. With year-to-year funding agreements, you can't access bond markets to build schools. You simply can't. With year-to-year funding agreements, you can't have long-term plans for water and waste water, for building and renewal, for eventual replacement, or for building roads and other critical infrastructure. It simply doesn't exist. A new relationship is predicated in being able to do some of those things.
Those are some of the broader dialogues and conversation that we are having right now.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much, and we appreciate you being here.
There are all kinds of situations across the country and in various communities, where some are remote and some are partly in the cities. Some communities have own-source revenues and some don't. With the population growing on reserves, everybody is trying to figure out a way to build more good quality homes with the available dollars.
Mr. Leblanc, in your travels and experience, have you seen examples of innovative housing solutions, such as manufactured homes or modular homes? In terms of housing, is there anything that we should take a look at?
There are two separate things. We need the infrastructure to go along with the housing. That's one major component. You can't build houses if you don't have the infrastructure for the homes. But, if we can do the actual home construction in a very efficient way, perhaps we can get more houses faster.
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for that question. It's something that we try to monitor and look at. The one community that comes to mind is the Blood Tribe, in Alberta, where they've established a fabrication facility right on the First Nation territory. Their initial step is to provide prefabricated homes for their members. I could be corrected on this, but I believe that their long-term goal would be to spread out beyond there and sell those houses to other communities. That is one example that requires innovation and financial ingenuity in order to set up and establish a manufacturing facility within your community.
There have been others. Grand River First Nation has a trust facility for homes. Essentially, they are trying to do two things. One is to access and use their right to harvest timber. For example, one community we were in last week, Pikangikum First Nation, has probably one of the first forest management licences in Canada. They want to access that forestry to build homes and to build the market.
There are some communities across the country that are being innovative in terms of providing homes for their communities. I couldn't name them all, but I think the Blood Tribe is a really good example.
Senator Raine: That's the Blood Tribe in Alberta?
Mr. Leblanc: That's correct.
Senator Raine: Where are they located?
Mr. Leblanc: Probably around Calgary, I would think.
Senator Raine: Do you know how they were able to get the financing to build their fabrication plant?
Mr. Leblanc: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much.
Senator Beyak: Gentlemen, I was wondering if you could help me with something that we have heard from different witnesses over the many weeks and months we have been doing this. In Ontario, there are 303,000 First Nations peoples and 258,000 live off reserve. Do we need a joint First Nation housing and infrastructure strategy with social services so that the money doesn't have to be transferred back and forth? It seems like the problem is off the reserve as much as on. Have you done any surveys with your own grassroots people as to whether those numbers are accurate and if it's because there's no housing on the reserve, or is it by choice? We've heard different points of view from so many different people.
Mr. Dinsdale: I would say the urbanization issue generally is complicated. I think there's both push and pull factors. People are pulled to communities for medical attention, education and employment opportunities. People are pushed off reserves because of housing, lack of access to critical infrastructure and things that you're discussing here today. Frankly, it's both. What you're hearing is a reflection of people's individual experiences. There have been lots of studies on urbanization of indigenous peoples and the reasons for that.
With respect to the housing mix, housing is a broad continuum from homelessness to private market housing. There are shelters, long-term shelters, social housing and larger types of higher density housing. In that continuum, what's available in an urban area versus what's available on reserve, I think the conversation is different.
Previous initiatives, like the supporting community partnership initiatives doing homelessness programs across the country, had a distinct Aboriginal component that in some areas helped facilitate the purchase of shelters and things of that nature. That's evolved and it's gone on to different kinds of dynamics.
There used to be various engagements with CMHC and others providing non-profit housing, urban Native home providers. They need more resources, no question. I'm not here advocating for them. It's a critically important program. I was involved in this area some time ago in my career, and I recall suggesting that there could be simple policy shifts where the existing housing stock could be provided to a corporation and they could refinance them and build more, but that policy barrier continued to exist when I was working on it. It may be something for you to take a look at. That's more in the urban dynamic.
There are more resources at play generally. I'm not questioning that there is certainly an issue and continues to be an issue and needs that kind of support and engagement. That population is very much transient. They go back and forth, so it's not simply either/or. Sometimes it's both in those situations.
With the on-reserve mix, we're trying to look at the basic housing provision and stock, what's available, the regime we work in and how to improve it. As they go into other regimes and territories, there are various resources available.
The Chair: I'd like to turn to water issues and ask a little bit more about this. This is directed to Mr. Leblanc.
The First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan was introduced in 2008 as an initiative of AANDC and Health Canada, and it was aimed at supporting facility construction, O&M on those facilities and training of operators, and monitoring of drinking water quality. I'm wondering if you could comment on what results that First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan achieved since its introduction in 2008.
Mr. Leblanc: We have often said that we do acknowledge and appreciate the funding and the regular budgets that have come through in support of the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan. As of 2013, I believe that First Nation Water and Wastewater Action Plan was extended for two years for a sum of about $328 million, and previous to that, $330 million over two years. Looking back at previous budgets, we do appreciate that and acknowledge that water is getting attention, and that's the positive side of it. Water is getting attention because that has been AANDC's and the government's priority in terms of capital funding.
You will notice that there is what you call a priority matrix that Aboriginal Affairs had developed many years ago. It establishes what is a priority. Water is priority A1. Housing is priority 4B, or something like that, so it's down there. That funding or that program has served to build new facilities and upgrade new facilities, so in a way it is helping the water situation on First Nations. Every once in a while you see the announcements in press releases from the government of a new water system being commissioned, so it has helped that way.
As we see by the number of drinking water advisories still out there, it's simply not enough to address it with First Nations. We have a big concern in that government has been promoting that they've released the elements that they want to see in the regulatory framework. They said this will be phased in and it will give time for First Nations to bring their systems up to par. We have concerns that it will take a long time to be able to bring First Nations up to a level where they can have good water management, have good operating systems and have the required training and support.
In short, Mr. Chair, it is appreciated but it's simply not enough to really deal with those drinking water advisories, which is only one indication of the problems, looking at systems that are deficient where you have a good operator being able to manage it, but it requires constant diligence to be able to make sure that nothing that gets through the system. They are always on guard to make sure that they are not allowing contaminants to get through to the community.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
If I may go a little further on that, we have information about the AFN's 2014 pre-budget submissions regarding on-reserve housing and infrastructure. It is referenced to the 2011 national engineering assessment review, which, as you pointed out, showed that 73 per cent of First Nation water systems were classified at high or medium risk. I'm sure you were involved in those recommendations, Mr. Leblanc. As I understand, there was a recommendation that the federal government engage with First Nations on a plan to implement the recommendations in the national engineering assessment with a clear plan of investment.
Could you comment on that? Were there some recommendations in the 2011 national engineering assessment in particular that you would draw to our attention as priorities?
Mr. Leblanc: First of all, our only involvement was to make comments on the terms of reference. We were not involved in the development of the recommendations. Those individual recommendations were drawn up by the consultant on an individual basis. They had a number of recommendations on each report. The basic recommendation of addressing the high risk, which I understand is the government's priority, was their decision. We were not involved in drawing up of any recommendations on that report, whether specific or broad recommendations.
The Chair: I'm sorry; I didn't mean to mischaracterize that.
Where do you think we're at as far as First Nations having the required human resources available to meet the responsibilities for the delivery of safe drinking water — the training part of it, which I'm sure we all agree is critical. How is that coming along, in your view?
Mr. Leblanc: The overall report identified that only a certain percentage of operators have a full licence to operate their systems. One of the prerequisites of moving into a regulatory regime if there is a strong push to incorporate by reference the provincial regulations is certification and an oversight operator. You have to have a 24/7 operation. In our situation, sometimes one operator operates 24/7/52 as there is no backup.
We have a long way to go in terms of providing the required backup so that a system is monitored continuously. In terms of training, I think we're getting there. There are some very good systems in place. For example, the Circuit Rider Training Program was initially reintroduced by the AFN back in 1996 and was subsequently handed over to a regional organization. It's been a backbone in supporting First Nations. There is still a lot of underlying support required for First Nations to move forward into a situation where they can safely and knowledgably manage their systems.
Senator Raine: I understand the Circuit Rider Training Program because I was on the committee when we did the study on water a few years back. Can you describe that program, because we have some new committee members who might not be familiar with it, its history and how it works?
Mr. Leblanc: The Circuit Rider Training Program is a support system that was developed many years ago. It was reintroduced to First Nations back in 1995-96. The system has hands-on training by experienced operators and trainers, usually retired from the municipal field. They come into a community, hold interviews and meet with the operator, who is sometimes new. They lay out a program of training that takes possibly a year to 18 months to bring an operator to a level of competence with their system.
It's called Circuit Rider Training because the trainers do a circuit about every six to eight weeks. They provide incremental training to the operator to the point where the operator is comfortable in maintaining and operating the system.
Recently in the evolution of the Circuit Rider Training Program, they started prep training for exams for certification. The program has evolved from a hands-on program to a prep-training program for certification. It's been very much appreciated by First Nations operators.
Trainers are available on a 24/7 basis so that if an operator runs into problems, he can call the trainer for support. It's an all-round support for operators.
Senator Raine: That's a win-win collaboration between, as you say, retired municipal water treatment operators and First Nation communities.
Mr. Leblanc: Yes. The program has evolved to a point where they are now using First Nation operators as trainers. It's at the point where they don't need to look for retired operators, so the program is beginning to feed itself.
Senator Raine: Mr. Leblanc, is the Circuit Rider Training Program available across Canada or just in certain regions?
Mr. Leblanc: It is available across Canada as an AANDC-funded program; but it's not available to all First Nations. It's for those who need it, such as a community where an operator suddenly leaves for another job and a fresh operator comes on board. They would call on the Circuit Rider Training Program to train that new operator.
Senator Raine: Great.
Mr. Leblanc: If I may add, the first operators cannot leave their community or their plant to train in other areas, such as the Walkerton training centre. This fills part of that need to be trained at home and to not have to leave the community.
Senator Raine: I remember when we heard about it before there was a concern because these water treatment operators were being trained and then were being head-hunted by nearby municipalities and moving off the reserve. One of the issues was that you needed to have your Grade 12 in order to start the training program. Has that been addressed?
Mr. Leblanc: Well, that's a requirement. As we mentioned, if we are going to incorporate provincial regulations, operators must have their Grade 12. As you know, education is one of our big issues in First Nations communities. Education and accessing those students that have math and science is an added problem. You need to have students with a good understanding of math, science and chemistry to be able to do that job.
Poaching is a big problem, and municipalities have that same issue. For example, in Ontario with its regulations, it takes a lot of money to train an operator. It's the same for First Nations. They train an operator and then they're gone, poached by resource industries, which are good at doing that. It's a constant recruitment and retraining process. We looked at that several years ago and did a study on recruitment, training and retention of operators on First Nations.
Senator Enverga: According to your statement, there are 130 drinking water advisories in effect in 97 First Nations, excluding British Columbia. What has B.C. done? Is there something we should know?
Mr. Leblanc: A few years ago, B.C. First Nations took over the health program from Health Canada and now the First Nations Health Authority in B.C. manages all environmental programs, including the monitoring of water in the province. That's why there is separate reporting on what's happening in B.C. and what's happening in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Dinsdale: It wasn't that there aren't any drinking water advisories in B.C. It's that they were covered in the other study that was referenced right afterwards.
The most recent one was in September 2013. There were 97 First Nations from one study, and a couple sentences down it talks about the B.C. study from June, which are the additional 29. That's how we get the total. B.C. was just handled differently in terms of how they came to numbers, but they still have issues, definitely.
Senator Enverga: We were somewhere in Maniwaki where there are some water issues, and my immediate concern was that they need the water advisory. I mean, why can't they just have some sort of an emergency water supply? I was thinking more along the lines of a disaster. If there's a disaster, they always provide drinking water for everybody.
Would it be possible for First Nations to have those disaster assistance water treatment facilities instead of giving bottled water or having a boiling advisory? Would you prefer that kind of help rather than having a boil-water advisory or something like that?
Mr. Leblanc: We often say in the engineering field that, with technology, you can do anything with money. Uranium is a difficult contaminant to treat. There is uranium everywhere in that community. All the wells are affected. You drill a well and you have uranium in your system.
There are point-of-entry systems that will treat uranium and remove uranium. We have had any number of approaches by companies that have the latest silver bullet to treat water, but it's a matter of finding the right technology to remove uranium.
As you know in your travels, you've seen core areas within the community where it's easier to provide a centralized system, and then you have the houses that are out in the rural areas that need to be treated individually, or provided with bottled water or water cisterns, where you have water delivery by truck.
Senator Tannas: Mr. Leblanc, I wanted to ask whether you think there has been a fulsome program or initiative or effort, where possible, to plug communities into existing neighbouring municipal infrastructure. Is there still, in your view, lots of opportunity there, or has that all been mined?
Mr. Leblanc: That's a tough question because in some communities where we have been involved, the issue is the First Nation's needs. Where a municipality is providing water, there is a view that the First Nation's needs come last. So when the municipality gets into trouble with water or something like that, it's the First Nation that suffers. There is also a question about agreements, which I believe AANDC is looking at, where essentially you're being held captive by the municipality in that you have no say in what your water rates are going to be. So First Nations that live adjacent to municipalities would prefer to have their own system, manage it and then be able to be comfortable that they are looking after their own water systems.
But, yes, there are still opportunities, I suppose, where First Nations adjacent to municipalities could operate that way.
Senator Tannas: So absent the very real issues that you've just mentioned, perhaps those could be alleviated through long-term funding agreements and contracts that carry penalties and some of those things. Obviously, in order for the municipality to enter into something like that, they would have to have some upfront incentive that helps them in some other way.
I come from a place called High River where we made a 100-year contract, I think, with Cargill for their meat packing plant. It had some benefits around employment and so on, but it has really stressed the municipality's infrastructure. We've just had to step up and deal with it because we made a contract and there were other things to deal with. We had no choice, and so we've done that and that's fine.
If we could get that piece somehow, or provide the right environment for those concerns to be alleviated, would you say that there's a fair amount of work that could be done in plugging in, in a perfect world?
Mr. Leblanc: I think it's one of those pieces of the puzzle that would offer that. Again, it is a solution.
One of the issues is that the municipality and the First Nation have to work well together, right up to the point where they have to be involved with the comprehensive community plan, because there have been instances where First Nation economic development efforts and growth projects have been thwarted because the municipality said they hadn't figured or counted for that additional water demand on what the First Nation was doing, so they were not going to get more water.
There are other issues that have to be looked at to make sure that it works properly.
Senator Tannas: Right, I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: I'd like to ask about the First Nation Infrastructure Fund. This is on top of the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program, and it is, of course, managed by AANDC and aims at a single-window approach to accessing funding for on-reserve infrastructure. They've set priority areas of energy, broadband, connectivity, garbage disposal, roads and bridges, and community capacity for infrastructure planning.
Would you have any comments on whether the First Nation Infrastructure Fund has been successful in streamlining the way First Nations governments can access federal infrastructure programming? I know you've said clearly that more money is needed, but I'm wondering whether you think the program, as set up now, is okay or whether it could be improved.
Mr. Leblanc: Well, certainly there's lots of room for improvement, but the First Nation Infrastructure Fund, when first introduced quite a few years ago, was managed by Aboriginal Affairs, and it was oversubscribed. So it gives you an indication that First Nations will access and utilize any program that comes around to be able to address their community assets, infrastructure.
This particular program, as you mentioned, focuses on five areas, which are normally not priority items for Aboriginal Affairs. I mentioned earlier the Aboriginal Affairs' priority is water and, maybe secondly, waste water. These five categories fall below, away from the priority areas identified in the priority matrix, which can be found on the Aboriginal Affairs' website. But they are oversubscribed.
The use of the Gas Tax Fund and the Building Canada Fund — it does sound like a lot of money, senators, when it was announced, $155 million over 10 years. That's really $15 million each year for 600 communities, and then they added the gas tax on top of that, which comes to about $26 million a year for the First Nations' portion of the Gas Tax Fund. So added to that, 15 and 26, it's about $42 million a year for 600 or so communities. On the face of it, when you use large numbers, it sounds like a lot, but it's not. It does help; I'm not saying that it doesn't help.
The other program worth mentioning is the RInC program introduced a few years ago, R-I-n-C. That's Recreation Infrastructure Canada, and municipalities and First Nations were eligible for that. There are some crazy programs, like funding the canoe club to be able to upgrade your club in the municipality, but it was for recreation and infrastructure projects. First Nations, again, jumped at that chance.
Unfortunately, they were kind of late to the table and they didn't have as many projects approved as they would have liked. Any of those programs that come through to help infrastructure are appreciated, but again it's oversubscribed and there's not enough to go around.
I think the message here is that the larger critical infrastructure is getting large funding, but the roads, bridges and community buildings are not getting the required resources to maintain and upgrade those systems.
Senator Raine: You mentioned that in your opinion First Nations need to be part of the planning process when they are adjacent to municipalities and want to integrate some of their infrastructure projects with municipal projects. Do you have any examples of best case scenarios where municipalities and First Nations are working well together that we might take a look at?
I know that there are First Nations adjacent to municipalities. On one side of the road there are beautiful homes and on other side they're really struggling to get basic infrastructure. Give us a little help there, if you could.
Mr. Leblanc: That's a little more difficult because most of the programs or agreements that AANDC supports are water and waste water, because it subscribes to their program that water and waste water are the priority items. I can't comment on how well those run, but they provide water to First Nations.
As to other areas that could be looked at, there are other agreements, like sharing community resources, where a First Nation may have an arena in the community and they share that with the municipality in terms of sharing agreements. Municipalities may share library resources with the community, so there are other municipality-type agreements that happen within these communities. Some of them are just agreements between the community and the municipality.
With the more funded agreements, Aboriginal Affairs gets involved because they are the ones funding the water rates and that kind of stuff. There is a whole slew of other projects in place where they work together.
Fire is a good one. The mutual aid agreements between communities are a good example of where First Nations and municipalities will share fire-fighting resources. It works both ways: When the municipality is stuck, First Nations will respond to that. It's both ways.
In some cases that has not worked either, where a First Nation house would completely burn down waiting for the truck to come from the municipality. There are some dangers to that too.
Senator Raine: I was thinking that when you're doing some planning, if you don't work together you could be planning incompatible hookups or systems. It would make sense to join together in infrastructure, even as simple as road networks. Are there examples of First Nations that worked very well with their neighbours, who could be right across the street, as municipalities? We'll have to look for that.
Mr. Leblanc: I'm sorry; I don't have that.
Senator Enverga: It struck me that you're asking for about $470 million annually, with a current investment of $165 million per year for water and waste water treatment. If I look at that, $165 million per year, that will be more than $1 million per resident. Am I right about that? If you do the costing per capita, it's more than a million per individual.
Mr. Leblanc: No.
Mr. Dinsdale: There are a million First Nation citizens, so it would be $1.70 per citizen, I suppose, using that calculation.
Senator Enverga: Per year.
Mr. Dinsdale: $1.70 a year, yes.
Senator Enverga: How could you quantify those costs? Would it be the same for every community or would there be some variances?
Mr. Dinsdale: I think, as reports indicate, 20 per cent of First Nation communities in Canada don't have suitable drinking water systems. That would be the 20 per cent that would be targeted. The 80 per cent that do would not be targeted in that regime.
It's worth noting that more is spent in municipalities, on Canadians generally, on their water and waste water and infrastructure than for First Nations citizens. That's a different way of looking at it.
You're drawing out one calculation, but the funding used to build schools, build roads to get to school, the electricity, the water, all of that, is not broken down in this manner. In fact, much more is spent in those environments than in the First Nation environment.
Senator Enverga: When you talk about the number of First Nations, are they all living in the reserves?
Mr. Dinsdale: No, that was the total number.
Senator Enverga: Total of everybody from outside and inside the First Nation?
Mr. Dinsdale: The total number of registered Indians, according to the Indian registry.
Senator Enverga: Registered inside?
Mr. Dinsdale: No, registered Indians. Aboriginal Affairs doesn't provide by residency. They provide how many status Indians, according to the Indian Act, they have on their rolls.
Senator Enverga: Would you say a million Indians? How many are living in First Nation communities?
Mr. Dinsdale: It depends on which community. It varies between 48 per cent living in urban areas to higher percentages, depending where they are, to very few in the North. As to where these 20 per cent are, I can't speak to the population breakdown here today.
Senator Enverga: When we went to more remote communities, if you look at the population, it's more than about a thousand or a couple thousand for a First Nation. I was surprised that there would be more people. I have been only to British Columbia First Nations and Quebec, and I was just looking at the numbers on my way here. I hope I get the information right.
The Chair: Mr. Dinsdale, in looking at these significant infrastructure needs, you estimated the housing needs in the range of over $20 billion. I heard you say that one of the issues is that there is no long-term financing, and therefore you can't raise bonds or other sources of financing from outside the government. I think that's one of the things our committee is most interested in looking at in going forward, of course not to let the government off the hook, but to recognize that if we can find ways of building on available government funding and perhaps increase government funding, then we could make a start to catch up with these shortfalls.
Could you elaborate on your thoughts on the need for the government to look at new approaches to financing? Have you given any thought to the question of land tenure? This has been highlighted to us as a barrier to attracting third-party financing as well.
Mr. Dinsdale: I think until land tenure — let me start there — is better defined and articulated, has the potential to be a disaster. If you live in some First Nation communities next door to Vancouver or any other large area, First Nations could be homeless in their own territory while the underlying title remains with the community. The fact that they can sell it for a million dollars and someone can built a condo or house on there because it's beside Vancouver is a real threat. Until we find a way of dealing with that, it has the potential to be an unmitigated disaster.
I think there are certainly opportunities for a spectrum of housing responses. The First Nations Market Housing Fund is the closest thing to a market-based approach to housing communities. I encourage you to talk to them as it's been very interesting. I have observed their well-intentioned effort, which is to build as many homes as they can. The thing that is interesting is that when they go to communities and begin the housing codes and begin the processes to access loans, so people can take loans to buy their own homes, is the amount of work that needs to be done. There is a large amount of basic organizational development, once they get communities ready for their citizens to go and get loans, and then get them built — they frankly have an uphill battle.
I'm not sure that changes in underlying title and land tenure are going to help with that situation. We are still dealing with the same impoverished situation in communities that need basic governance funding and support to move forward. So I think there is a whole spectrum.
Having said that, they are making inroads very slowly. They are beginning to find ways to move forward with market-based housing, in that regard. There is a variety of things that needs to take place: moving back from market- based housing; what kind social housing mix; looking at bond markets and other instruments, which are different measures of that private mix; and how the community can maybe provide housing directly for the citizens. There are different manners and different approaches. Frankly none of those opportunities exist today because of the nature of the funding relationship.
The Chair: You mentioned a report relating to First Nations Market Housing Fund.
Mr. Dinsdale: They report yearly to Parliament through the minister, through CMHC. They report yearly.
The Chair: They have also come before our committee. The fund has potential, in your view, even though there hasn't been very much take-up to date?
Mr. Dinsdale: It demonstrates the challenges. It's in good faith that they're moving forward. Its long-term potential is yet to be seen, but it's an approach towards market-based housing that they're trying. They're doing excellent work in helping raise capacity, if nothing else, at this point.
Mr. Leblanc: The market housing fund was predicated on accessing about 30 percent. They looked at the spectrum of First Nations that could afford a house on a market basis, and they would be looking at accessing about 30 percent of the First Nations community.
The Chair: I would like to ask you about the whole process of capital planning. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has a First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plan process. The way it works, as I understand it, is the regional offices work with First Nations to establish five-year capital plans. According to the department's national priority ranking framework, projects are prioritized that address the most urgent health and safety risks. Do you have any comment on whether that's working or how it's working? Do you have any recommendations about how this process might be improved?
Mr. Leblanc: I was fortunate to work with another organization in Toronto, which is the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Organization. I was with them for 15 years. We had the opportunity to sit in on the Aboriginal Affairs capital planning process. We saw the workings and the decision-making process that they went through. We were involved with that on a quarterly basis, so we had good first-hand knowledge of how that works.
It's always been a frustrating exercise that this whole process involves a convoluted application process, where you first have to do a feasibility study and then you get into a preliminary project approval. That takes a year. Then you get into the study itself. You get funding to do a study. That's takes another year. Finally, you get into the effective project approval, which essentially approves the project. By the time you start planning, it's about three or four years before you get the funding and get the contribution agreement with the First Nation and Aboriginal Affairs in order to start the project. From that point of view, there's always been a criticism that it takes too long and that it needs to be streamlined.
The First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plan that you mentioned — there is access to the national report on Aboriginal Affairs. But, at the regional level, they have much more detail. By chance, yesterday, I had a call from one of the tribal council technicians. He was venting his frustration, even with the First Nations Investment Infrastructure Program, that at the regional level you are required to put in your five-year plans and you're not always guaranteed that you're going to get your project. It's an ongoing process where you have to jump through the hoops, and there is no guarantee that you will get your projects through. It's still a source of frustration to First Nations in terms of how the capital planning process works.
I think they're stuck with that until there is a concerted effort to look at streamlining it and making it more usable or user friendly.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I know you'll join me in thanking Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Leblanc in giving us a very thorough overview of this issue, as we begin to look at infrastructure needs. We're very grateful for your concrete suggestions, the information you provided us and with what you've promised to provide us in follow-up.
Thank you, very much.
(The committee adjourned.)