Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence - April 9, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 9, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the challenges relating to First Nations infrastructure on reserves.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in this room or via CPAC or the Web.
I am Dennis Patterson from Nunavut, chair of the committee. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This evening, we will hear testimony on our specific order of reference authorizing us to examine and report on the challenges and potential solutions relating to infrastructure on reserves, including housing and community infrastructure, and innovative opportunities for financing and more effective collaborative strategies.
Today I am pleased to welcome witnesses from the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Before proceeding to their testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore, Nova Scotia.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck, vice-chair from Saskatchewan.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace from New Brunswick.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Greene Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you. I know members of the committee will help me in welcoming our witnesses from the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Merv Buckle, Advisor; and Joe McKay, Manager, Technical Services. Joining these gentlemen at the table, from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, is Chief Perry Bellegarde.
We look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from the senators. We will begin with Chief Bellegarde. Please proceed.
Perry Bellegarde, Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations: Thank you very much, Chairman Patterson.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Bellegarde spoke in his native language.]
I'm very happy to be here. I just acknowledged all the men and the women who are here and bring you greetings from our federation. I'll get right to the text and then we'll have more time for questions and comments.
I always put on my treaty medallion. It reminds not only me but people around the table I talk to, government officials, that we have a very special relationship with the Crown in terms of the treaty relationship. I always wear this as a gentle reminder to people about the rights we have as indigenous peoples here in this land now called Canada and we refer to as Turtle Island.
Good evening, honourable committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee. Today I'm appearing as the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and as the Saskatchewan Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations. I am also the national portfolio holder for treaties.
I give thanks to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for inviting me here to provide evidence. Thank you for undertaking this study and taking steps to address infrastructure on reserves.
The FSIN represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan. Our federation is committed to honouring the spirit and intent of treaty, as well as the full and effective promotion, protection and implementation of the treaty promises that were made more than a century ago.
While I am currently the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the Saskatchewan Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations, I was also raised on the Little Black Bear First Nation, in the Treaty 4 territory, a treaty territory that spans southern Saskatchewan, southwest Manitoba and a small piece of southeastern Alberta. Treaty 4 territory is approximately 75,000 square miles.
I have been an elected leader at all levels of First Nations organizations from FSIN chief, AFN regional chief, tribal council representative, assistant tribal council representative, as well as being chief and councillor at Little Black Bear.
At the same time, it has been my honour to learn from more than 60 traditional knowledge keepers and elders — women and men from throughout the treaty territories of Saskatchewan and other parts of what we now call Canada. They schooled me in the spirit and intent of the treaty and what is foundational to our indigenous rights as human rights.
Improving the daily lived experiences of our people regardless of where they reside can be accomplished only by recognizing, respecting and fully implementing our human rights as affirmed in the treaties, the Constitution and international human rights law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The urgent need remains for Canada to demonstrate genuine respect and long-term commitment in keeping with the 2012 Crown-First Nations Gathering and the 2013 meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders. Because your study focuses on reserve infrastructure, I'll focus my formal presentation on on-reserve issues. However, housing off-reserve is equally important.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the minimum standard for indigenous rights globally, endorsed by Canada in 2010, and Article 21 affirms the following:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.
2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.
Indigenous peoples in Canada are in vulnerable situations, as is evidenced in the Human Development Index where, according to an Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada study, Canada ranks sixth but First Nations rank sixty-third. When indigenous peoples are in vulnerable situations, governments are required to take special measures to improve such situations, not exploit the vulnerabilities, as is affirmed in Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 as I just stated.
In October 2013, during his official visit to Canada, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, acknowledged that Canada has a goal of reconciliation and has taken steps toward that goal. He also pointed out the daunting challenges and concluded that Canada faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples. Professor Anaya cited that the well-being gap between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples has not narrowed, that treaty and Aboriginal land claims remain largely unresolved, and that there are high levels of distrust between Aboriginal peoples and governments at both federal and provincial levels. Professor Anaya further highlighted that one in five Aboriginal Canadians live in homes that are in need of serious repair and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has said consistently that the conditions of Aboriginal people make for the most serious human rights problem in Canada.
Further, the 2011 Auditor General's report highlights the poor living conditions on reserves and the impediments. This is a quote from the report:
It is clear that living conditions are poorer on First Nations reserves than elsewhere in Canada. Analysis by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) supports this view. . . . Instead, the average well-being of those communities continued to rank significantly below that of other Canadian communities. Conditions on too many reserves are poor and have not improved significantly. . . .
In our view, many of the problems facing First Nations go deeper than the existing programs' lack of efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that structural impediments severely limit the delivery of public services to First Nations communities and hinder improvements in living conditions on reserves. We have identified four such impediments:
lack of clarity about service levels;
lack of a legislative base;
lack of an appropriate funding mechanism; and
lack of organizations to support local service delivery.
Four key points.
Under ``lack of clarity about services levels,'' she noted:
It is not always evident whether the federal government is committed to providing services on reserves of the same range and quality as those provided to other communities across Canada. In some cases, the Department's documents refer to services that are reasonably comparable to those of the provinces. But comparability is often poorly defined and may not include, for instance, the level and range of services to be provided.
We hear the UN Special Rapporteur and the Auditor General acknowledging the poor state of infrastructure on reserves. As affirmed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the rights to housing and to continuous improvement of living conditions are an essential part of our right to an adequate standard of living. It is Article 11.
Like all human rights, our human rights, both collective and individual, are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. The denial of one of our human rights invariably impedes the enjoyment of the others. For example, violations of our right to housing often results in the undermining of our other human rights. As the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has generally described:
The absence of adequate housing is also likely to cause poor health, to interfere with family life and education, to hinder employment opportunities and to undermine civil and political rights. This may lead to social exclusion and to problems with the justice system.
In February, you learned from National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo that current housing programs do not meet the increasing demand for new housing units brought on by the higher than average population growth, overcrowding, outstanding and current effects of flooding, 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; 44 per cent of the existing units will require major repair; and 18 per cent will require replacement, according to a study commissioned by AANDC and carried out by Stewart Clatworthy.
Poor-quality housing constructed with inferior and toxic building materials such as asbestos leaves our citizens with serious health challenges that must be urgently addressed. With regard to our human rights to housing and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard in physical and mental health, Canada has core obligations that it must fulfill under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the following core obligations are of immediate effect: the obligation not to discriminate between different groups of people in the realization of such rights; the obligation to take steps, including devising specific strategies and programs targeted deliberately at the full realization of such rights; and the obligation to monitor progress in the realization of human rights. Progressive realization of such rights is not an excuse to postpone implementation, but rather calls for immediate steps as well as for developing a road map to implement it.
Stats from the Integrated Capital Management System from March 2013 show the following for Saskatchewan: There are 14,583 houses, with 374 houses completed in 2011-12; 90 were torn down; 566 were renovated. This means that the net increase is less than 2 per cent, which, given our population growth, does not meet the housing shortage. According to the database, overcrowding on Saskatchewan First Nations is as high as 8.43 people per house.
Overcrowded and inadequate housing means the spread of communicable diseases and other negative impacts on health. It means the lack of space for children to play and study. It means the increased family tension that overcrowding creates and the lack of safe alternatives for family members if they fear violence. Inadequate housing affects a range of human rights.
You also heard that the AFN has explored alternative infrastructure delivery options, including the creation of First Nations-owned regional entity, operating in partnership for long-term, cost-effective and sustainable solutions. Partners who are interested in providing alternative servicing options and alternative procurement options to address the gap in infrastructure are out there. Making such options work means that the federal government must amend its policy on contribution agreements to consider much longer commitments to these financial partnerships. As we know today, contribution agreements are annual or, in some cases, multi-year. However, they are not usually longer than five years. Financial partners want the federal government commitment to be 15, 20, 25 years or longer.
Capacity for First Nations housing authorities is needed. When I say ``capacity,'' I mean equitable funding for employees to develop and administer a housing authority, coupled with funding for ongoing training and development such that the housing authorities can meet the real needs on an ongoing basis.
Articles 19 and 23 of the UN declaration affirm the following:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. . . .
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.
First Nations leaders understand that there are rumours of federal legislation to develop standards for First Nations, not unlike building codes that exist in other jurisdictions. If such rumours are indeed true, I would ask that the government carefully adopt a coordinated approach with First Nations. The inadequacy of infrastructure has to be dealt with before or while such standards are implemented. Houses, schools, water and waste water distribution and collection systems, roads and bridges, community solid waste collection and disposal systems, electrical and energy systems, bulk fuel storage and distribution systems, firefighting facilities and fire detection systems, community buildings and community infrastructure enjoyed by other communities throughout Canada must also be enjoyed by First Nations people. Before adopting and implementing legislative measures in keeping with Canada's endorsement of the UN declaration, First Nations must be consulted and actively involved.
My last point of recommendations: The AFN submitted a fact sheet to you in early February, and I reiterate those recommendations: number 1, annual standardized funding to adequately deliver safe, secure and sustainable housing on-reserve; number 2, that the Government of Canada lift the 2 per cent funding cap that has been in place since 1996; number 3, that support be sought for revolving loan funds and other funding programs that have been shown to be successful at the community level; number 4, that the establishment of housing authorities be undertaken; number 5, that long-term considerations be supported, such as economic development initiatives related to accessible housing on- reserve; and number 6, that the First Nations' own institutions for loans and mortgages be supported.
The UN declaration, in addition to our treaties and constitutional principles, can define our collective goals, in this case, our right to improve our housing. The standards articulated in the UN declaration form a common, principled framework within which we can all work and address the essential need for attainable housing and infrastructure on reserve.
That concludes my formal statement. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Bellegarde. That was a very compelling presentation of the challenges, and we thank you for the recommendations as well.
Merv Buckle, Advisor, Meadow Lake Tribal Council: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you to provide you with a little bit of background related to some of the practical issues and challenges that are being addressed and faced by the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and the nine member First Nations.
I'm going to speak on two issues, and then Mr. McKay will speak on some general infrastructure issues as the manager of the technical unit at the tribal council.
Just to give a bit of a background, the chiefs in Meadow Lake in 2005 authorized a review of housing as part of their governance negotiations that they were having with Canada. The review was conducted on the state of housing, and some observations and recommendations were made. Due to the downturn in the economy and some serious concerns around the recommendations and how they had to be dealt with within the context of a treaty right to shelter and limited resources, the changes weren't tackled at the time. There was really not a financial capacity to pursue some of the proposed changes.
It is important to provide some of the assumptions that were given in 2006. Western Management Consultants talked about the fact that if nothing was done, in 10 years the occupancy rate per house would be 10.5. The current rate now, 10 years later, is 7.6, with an annual population growth of about 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent.
Interestingly enough, we looked at school enrolment over that 10-year period when the population grew at 2.5 per cent, and the student enrolment declined in that 10-year period.
Basically, the assessment there is that there is a threshold of overcrowding so that once you get close to eight, people leave the reserve, so without adequate housing, you are jeopardizing your educational system.
The housing review that was conducted in 2006 by Western Management Consultants pointed out that at the current practices and funding levels it would be impossible to address the needs of the growing population. In fact, the consultant at the time said that our primary housing policy should be to buy bus tickets, because you won't be able to provide adequate housing with your current resources. It was really a fairly blunt report.
Because of the downturn in the economy and the lack of financial resources that haven't changed in a number of years, no action was taken to try to address some of the major issues around the recommendations regarding rent to own, a rent-geared-to-income model, et cetera. There just wasn't that capacity.
But in 2012, after serious concerns were put forward by several chiefs, it was agreed that a technical working group would be established to take another look at this and see if we can come up with some options that might be workable. That work is currently under way. Joe McKay, me, and two other people — a former staff person of the federation responsible for housing and another staff person working with First Nations on housing at the tribal council — are involved in a working group to put together an options paper for the chiefs to consider.
Various approaches involving social housing, rent geared to income, rent to own and home ownership will be included in the option paper, and even some novel approaches as to whether there can be an agreement to establish a housing authority for all nine First Nations. Is there a potential for establishing a housing trust fund that would provide funding based upon pre-established criteria for housing and managed by a trust? So we're looking at all potential options for consideration to give to the chiefs.
There's one other big elephant in the room that doesn't make sense in Saskatchewan, probably as well in Manitoba and Alberta. I hope I'm pronouncing his name correctly, since my mother is Ukrainian. John Kiedrowski wrote a report in 2005 on the implementation of shelter allowance. He estimated that in Saskatchewan region there was a $17.8-million shortfall in shelter allowances for non-CMHC homes for individuals on social assistance. But that was based upon a shelter allowance rate averaging about $380 per month. The current shelter rate established by the province on average is $650.
If you take a 50 per cent dependency rate, which is 5 per cent lower than was done in the 2006 study, you are looking at a significant cost of about $5.6 million that the First Nations in Meadow Lake don't receive as a shelter allowance for non-CMHC homes that First Nations in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec do receive.
We think that's an uneven playing field. When you go to the chiefs and say, ``Do you want to try to do something different?'' and they're saying, ``What's the capacity?'' We're saying this is an opportunity. This policy to implement the shelter allowance was passed in 1998, but the money hasn't arrived. As one person back at the tribal council said, ``How much does that add up to since 1998, because that should be an IOU?'' That is an interesting concept and probably would have some validity amongst the chiefs.
This is another issue, not part of my original talking points, but I think it's important: In the governance negotiations that have been going on for a number of years, Canada, about 12 years ago, maybe 10 years ago, proposed that the First Nations at Meadow Lake consider a life-cycle capital model that was incorporated into the Nisga'a governance agreement. That model basically said, ``We'll identify the life expectancy of all of your assets. We will then provide you money to ensure that when that asset needs to be replaced, you'll have it in a capital reserve.''
It was recommended by Canada's negotiating team. I was involved in working with the Department of Public Works, an engineer and architectural firm to do some costing of assets in Saskatchewan that were different from the B.C. model that Nisga'a did, and that was completed and agreed to by AANDC at the time. Only three or four years later we were advised, when the final fiscal offer came from Canada, that they came to the conclusion that they couldn't afford the life-cycle capital model for the nine First Nations in Meadow Lake, and it was taken off the table.
Part of the difficulty that has been faced is that in the governance negotiations, which created some problems, you were forced to accept the current funding levels to sign your governance agreement. It became very difficult for political leaders to say, ``We'll sign, knowing that three other regions are getting shelter allowances and we're not; and that we should sign when other First Nations have negotiated life-cycle capital funding for replacement of assets when their life expectancy is over, but it's off the table.''
So it became very frustrating for them to accept that kind of approach. As a result, there has been a slowdown in accepting that kind of framework to sign an agreement and lock yourself in forever. There are some challenges around this that clearly create some problems. It's a challenge, I think, with the framework that Canada has, and Indian Affairs, which says the current level of funding is all you get. So why would somebody sign when, in another part of the country, that current level is much higher? It's very difficult.
I'll leave it now to Joe to speak to a couple of practical issues that he deals with in the technical unit.
The Chair: That was very interesting. Thank you.
Joe McKay, Manager, Technical Services, Meadow Lake Tribal Council: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you, senators, at the committee here. I come from the First Nation, Peepeekisis, in the Treaty 4 territory.
Mr. Bellegarde: We're neighbours.
Mr. McKay: We're neighbours, yes.
I worked for my band for about 17 years in maintenance, water and sewer. I left the reserve and I moved on to working for the provincial health system at the hospital as facility maintenance operator. I did that for about three years. Then I moved into the tribal council for technical services. I've been a director for technical services for two years now, so I just started into this game.
Because of that, I've come up with some different challenges, I guess you would say, that I face. Some of them would be dealing with the regional. I found out that all the different provinces deal differently with their regional AANDC process for capital infrastructure.
I know that in Saskatchewan, dealing with AANDC, we have a pretty good relationship. I work with the tribal council in dealing with the First Nations there, talking with them and having the capital project meetings in Regina. We do that every year. Apparently, it's an issue with money. There is always a shortfall of money.
I'll go back to the points I was talking about on subdivisions. For infrastructure on our subdivisions, there's a lack of funding to develop subdivisions to ensure serviced lots are available to accommodate housing construction plans. There have been and are some communities that presently do not have adequate serviced lots to accommodate their housing construction plans.
Sewer and water is a nasty one. The lack of equipment at the First Nations level to maintain sewer and water infrastructure and the high cost of contracting for services is a serious problem. The tribal council technical unit has acquired equipment to support First Nations, but the process of acquiring necessary maintenance equipment is proposal-driven and ad hoc in nature. The technical unit attempts to provide cost-effective support services where possible.
With that, I can see all the other First Nations across Canada, they get a subdivision. When their force mains get plugged, they have no equipment at all. When that happens, the sewer will back up, and then you will have raw sewage all over the place. That's a health and safety issue, right? Wouldn't you agree?
Another issue I have on my talking points is certification. Water plant operators' certification is a cumbersome process. Training modules sponsored by the tribal council result in individual operators being recommended for certification by the province. Approvals of certification by the province can result in a one-year delay in adjusted funding levels that would recognize the new certified status of the operator.
That being said, in my region, AANDC actually provides a subsidy, where they actually top up what they get from CAIS, the Capital Asset Inventory System. That's an incentive for the water plant operators to stay at the First Nation level instead of leaving and going to a town or a city after they become certified. I found out that Saskatchewan is the only region that does that. I don't know why it is that way. Can anyone answer that question?
AANDC has been operating via a five-year capital plan that identifies capital construction needs for all major projects. A recent trend has been to centralize the capital planning responsibility in Ottawa. Doing it that way just takes away the First Nations' ability to communicate with the tribal councils. They should actually be back to the region and be able to support what the tribal council and the First Nation want.
I recognize that some of the best practices in Saskatchewan had capital allocations made to the regional level where, in consultation with First Nations, a capital planning set of criteria are developed and applied. The recent centralization has removed any significant dialogue between regional officials and the tribal councils regarding the capital planning and approval process, like I said before.
Information technology, IT: My office is currently utilizing geo-spatial referencing and imagery to map our communities, including all infrastructure at a detailed level. In addition, as funds can be identified, the technical unit has been gradually linking remotely to our communities to monitor boiler systems and water treatment plants. The process has been gradual, due to outdated technology in the plants and limited resources, to incorporate new technology to be able to remotely monitor operations for all First Nations.
An additional goal would be to monitor health stations, if resources are provided, to install the necessary remote- access technology. The application of remote monitoring will, over time, reduce costs and provide immediate response to on-site operators to address problems and issues.
That's what I have for a presentation.
The Chair: I'd like to thank all of you very much. We have a real picture of the day-to-day and big-picture issues from the three of you.
Before I hear from senators, could I clarify, Mr. Buckle? You presented this problem of the shelter allowance gap. I think I understood it, but I just want to make sure, for the benefit of the committee members.
The federal shelter allowance is paid according to the provincial standards, and what you're telling us is that Ontario and Quebec have provincial shelter allowances. Saskatchewan does not, so there's inequity between First Nations in those provinces and your province. Did I get that right?
Mr. Buckle: It's Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. It's a social assistance payment for rent for individuals who are in houses on-reserve that are not solely — I think is the terminology — funded by the federal government. In that light, a number of the First Nations in Meadow Lake have used own-source funding to supplement housing. There have been shared costs to building those houses.
The issue is that as the policy got passed, in my understanding, money was spent in three regions, and the rest of the regions were told there were no more resources available to accommodate this. That has created significant problems. The housing allocation for the First Nations, for the nine First Nations in Meadow Lake and for all of the First Nations in the province, in my understanding, has not changed in 20 years.
If you take a look at the shelter allowances, I've recently met with senior officials at the region and talked about the study I referred to here and said for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba it was $45 million. There's consensus around the table that it's probably now north of $100 million because of the increased shelter allowances over the last 10 to 12 years. That is significant.
This is possibly why — I think we've seen it a lot — a large number of First Nations try to use some of their own source of revenues, from dividends from some of their investment companies and so on from other operations, to supplement housing. But this shelter allowance process would really assist the establishment of what I referred to earlier, an aggregate housing authority or trust that could help manage that exercise or support more effectively individual First Nation housing authorities. That will be presented to the chiefs in Meadow Lake in the next two to three months: Here are the options. How do you want to go forward and take a look at this?
We think it's imperative, to have any success in moving forward, that the shelter allowance policy has to be addressed and a level playing field across the country established.
The Chair: We've had Mr. Kiedrowski appear before our committee, and I believe we have his report. We have some idea of what you're talking about.
I just wanted to mention also that our committee mandate is to look at innovative approaches and opportunities for financing. It sounds like that's precisely what you're doing with your 2012 exploration of options. I'm not sure what the time frame is on finishing that work, but I would request, on behalf of the committee, that if you're willing to share that with us, we're going to be at this important study for a while yet. If in the coming months you have some options you're willing to share with us, it may be very helpful to us in formulating our committee recommendations.
Mr. Buckle: I will bring up your request to the tribal chief and the chiefs when we make the presentation. We'll leave it up to them, but we'll let them know of your interest.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this evening. It's almost impossible to know where to start.
Chief Bellegarde, you gave us a good overview of the situation, of all the outcomes related to housing, when you have seven or eight people per house and what the outcomes of that can be to the well-being of the community, including even, shockingly, decreases in school attendance. Clearly this is an important issue to address.
Chief Bellegarde, you talked about adopting a coordinated approach where the First Nations should be consulted and involved. I would ask you if you could perhaps detail that just a little bit more so we have an idea of what you mean by that.
Mr. Bellegarde: Again, it's always the same thing. Thanks for the question, senator. What I mean is that instead of government and AANDC developing policy and legislative programs unilaterally, there should be full inclusion and involvement of First Nations people in the development and design of that. Again, that's what I'm referring to: a coordinated approach — don't just do everything in Ottawa by yourselves in isolation.
First Nations leadership know the needs and the communities. Sometimes it's not a one-size-fits-all solution, because you have 633 reserves across Canada: 58 different nations, 58 different tribes. You have close to 100 tribal councils. They're at all different levels in terms of development. You have to make sure that whatever is developed is inclusive but respectful of that diversity, and to make sure that First Nations people voice their involvement in the development and design from square one. That's what I'm referring to.
I could have spoken a lot more clearly, instead of reading this out, and to everybody in the room and across Canada, that people have to get their heads around the rights issue, the treaty right to shelter. Housing is the number one issue on every reserve, housing and lack of jobs. There are push factors. When we start talking about housing, it's not just on-reserve, because 50 per cent of our people in Saskatchewan reside off-reserve. So accessible housing is a key thing.
My point is that if you can't get your heads around the rights argument, then get your heads around the business case. Remember the 6 versus 63 in terms of quality of life, the Human Development Index. Great place in Canada to live. It is fantastic. It is a beautiful country, but you apply those same indices to indigenous people, it is sixty-third, and that is where we have to start closing that socio-economic gap that exists. Getting First Nations people educated and trained; getting them off welfare; getting them out of jail, because it is a cost to the legal system.
That's the point I'm trying to make. That's why I referred to the high level, the human rights, all of that. I speak very openly and honestly about that. That's the issue in Canada. It is such a rich country. We should not have those negative stats in this rich country at all.
Senator Dyck: You mentioned that perhaps we should start viewing housing as a business case. I think a lot of times people do have problems understanding the rights issue, but most people would probably zero in on the business case.
In terms of a business case, then, when you are faced with a situation where there's a terrible shortage of houses and there are a lot of houses that are in need of repair, that all takes money, and it sounds like you are not getting enough money now. How do we turn that around? How do we get to the place where that liability becomes somehow an opportunity or an economic development for the individual First Nations?
Mr. Bellegarde: Senator, again, just view it as investments, investments in human capital, investments in community, and you will start realizing those high social costs coming down. It is all connected.
Housing is connected to education. Education is connected to the justice system, the health care system. It is all connected. Housing is a very big issue, and if you can address that and to the government and the powers that be. Every year there's a federal budget. We are trying to influence that system, that cycle, to make sure that there are proper investments, to start closing that huge socio-economic gap that exists. It means, yes, more financial investments to address that business case, and as well, capacity building.
Again, going back to the recommendations, my colleagues here talk about some innovative things, but even that long-term funding, instead of just one year or five years — you can't go to any financial institution. But if you look at a 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-year funding obligation, you can. So a simple thing like that, a policy change — that's a recommendation. Again, I go back to the recommendations there.
Senator Dyck: I think it was you, Mr. Buckle, that talked about the life-cycle capital model, and at one point in time it was agreed to, and some First Nations actually signed on and benefited, and then it was terminated.
I'm wondering, is the life-cycle capital model the type of model wherein there would be long-term planning, and there would be these 5- , 10-, 15-year funding arrangements so that you could do these long-term plans, and you could get financial institutions on side that could see that the amount of money you needed to borrow or whatever was going to work out in the end?
Mr. Buckle: Yes, senator. Basically, it took CAIS, the inventory of all the community assets, schools, health clinics, all the community buildings, and gave a life expectancy to those assets. The school has a life expectancy, if it's constructed this way, of 50 years, 40 years; the band office, et cetera.
One of the issues when it came to Saskatchewan was their construction process in capital buildings was to convert to steel roofs and brick. Therefore, the debate, and rightfully so, that AANDC provided was that our schools in Saskatchewan have a longer life expectancy than some of the ones constructed in B.C. that had less. That's when we got all of the departments together, and engineers and came up with an agreed-upon life expectancy.
What it identified was with all of those assets, there's an amount of money you will get annually that carries forward, and it goes into a block, and it's managed by a regional capital authority for the First Nations involved in that governance. When that asset is to be replaced, you have the money in place to replace it.
The plus side of that is — and it was argued around the table and discussed with the representatives at the negotiating table — if you have a good maintenance management plan and you can maintain that asset beyond its life expectancy, you can retain that money and let it grow in your capital reserve.
It became a situation where our chiefs, in principle, said, ``That's the best thing we have heard, rather than trying to compete with all of the other 600 First Nations with limited capital resources. It makes sense that we, as a governing body and signing a governance agreement, could have a process to replace our assets and to actually extend their life, because it would benefit us in a capital management reserve.''
That was the situation. I don't know the real answer, but in discussions with representatives at the time, I think the model in British Columbia was not nearly as expensive, because they didn't have a lot of large schools on-reserve. They were provincial. When they added up the capital costs nationally, I think it frightened people in the government of Canada what the costs would be, and they couldn't go there. You will never find that in writing anywhere, but we were just told, ``Sorry, we can't go down that way.''
Senator Dyck: We heard — I think it was last week — that when they do this capital inventory assets system, they don't actually — they listed 11 types of public access buildings, but houses were not included.
Mr. Buckle: No.
Senator Dyck: It seems to me that now we're talking about eight people per house and the need for housing, but it is not taken into account in this database in terms of the amount of money. It just seems to me like a big gap.
Mr. Buckle: Housing has not been deemed by the department as part of the major capital infrastructure. Sewer and water, subdivisions, water treatment plants, schools, that's part of the major cap. Housing has always been dealt with separately. It is not deemed as part of CAIS, the community assets.
Senator Dyck: Would you view it as a major asset?
Mr. Buckle: If you could get condition reports. Joe is involved in doing assessments. I was in his office last week. They have all of their houses numbered, coming up digitally, all of the subdivisions in all of their communities and overlaid with detailed information about each of those units.
That's being managed at the tribal council technical basis, but it is to assist them in working with the First Nations on developing plans around subdivision development and so on and helping the communities.
There doesn't appear to be the same rigor around the community assets inventory process that exists for major capital assets. It doesn't exist.
The Chair: When did the capital planning function move from the region to Ottawa? Can either of you tell us that?
Mr. Buckle: My assessment there is anecdotal, but probably in the last three to four years there's been a major move to centralize capital management at headquarters and the decisions around what the capital plan would be nationally rather than — maybe I can go back. My grey hair tells a story, but I started in Indian Affairs and spent 20 years there.
When I started in a district office in 1977 — that will tell you how old I am — all of the major capital was managed out of Ottawa. They decentralized it to regions over time. You have more knowledge of the needs and so on. ``We will give you an allocation. You can work out a set of priorities and criteria for which facilities you build first, second and third.'' I was actually at the meeting with all of the chiefs and representatives in Saskatchewan where that criteria was worked out, debated and agreed to.
Mr. Bellegarde: I was there.
Mr. Buckle: Perry was probably there, as well. We were both younger at the time.
In a sense, we agreed to it and said health and safety is number one, and overcrowding. Those are the issues. That's how you ended up in the region-building facilities.
The process was different in each region. Some managed it better than others. As a reaction to some major issues around major capital, there's been a desire to bring it into the centre and AANDC can at least plan it better. That's been sort of the mentality.
A couple of the officials who are still working at the Saskatchewan Region consistently tell me that they have been referenced in a number of different reviews that have gone on as having the best practices around capital. I would suggest that's true. That may not be the case throughout all of the regions, but I think in terms of taking control over the full major capital planning process, there's a sense of security in Ottawa if they're responsible for overseeing that, rather than allocating it out to regions.
Hopefully, they will get all of the criteria established and work with Indian organizations and then decentralize it again where there's more input and some more timely responsiveness to the needs.
The pendulum has swung totally back to where it was when I started in the department, and we have some interesting discussions with my former colleagues that it's going back to where it was 30 years ago.
Senator Meredith: This is about a point Chief Bellegarde raised about inclusion. You talked about Ottawa doing everything from here in terms of just not having provided the opportunity for First Nations to be included in the policy planning. Why is that? What steps have you taken to ensure that you are heard at the policy stage?
Mr. Bellegarde: Good question. It's constant lobbying and constant meeting with the bureaucrats, both regionally and nationally. That's always ongoing. As chiefs, whether you're a chief at the reserve level, tribal council level, regional level or national level, what do we do? We meet with ministers and federal government departments and we try to lobby them and get them educated and aware that we need to be involved and included. Don't just do this new policy for us. Maybe we can work together on things.
It is constant lobbying, senator.
Senator Meredith: What are they telling you?
Mr. Bellegarde: Depends on the issue. For example, tomorrow you have a new federal piece of legislation coming down in education. The minister is going to be announcing it tomorrow. You heard from different regions. ``No'' to unilateral legislation. ``No'' to omnibus bills — Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. Down with no inclusion from First Nations peoples. It depends what the issue is.
Just on that one tomorrow, I would urge the Senate to get on top of that one early. Don't wait for the normal legislative process for the first, second and third readings on the house to go through. Get on that one right away — on that one.
The Chair: We will.
Mr. Bellegarde: I'm sorry. I'm digressing.
It depends on the issue. Some departments are more open-minded.
I will just go back to the Prime Minister's comments last year when we had the meeting with the Prime Minister. He committed to eight points. Treaty implementation and high-level mechanisms. We still have to work around it. What are those? Terms of reference for the senior oversight committee — we have to change the name. That's one piece. Comprehensive claims was the other one. Missing and murdered Aboriginal women was another one. A new fiscal relationship between the Crown and First Nations people. Resource revenue sharing. Key investments in education. The other one was no more unilateral legislation that impacts on First Nations treaty and inherent rights.
Those are the requests.
Again, it depends on what the issue is. On some, there's movement; on others, not so much. But the key point would be this: The relationship between indigenous peoples and governments, both federal and provincial, is so totally unnecessarily adversarial. It doesn't have to be like that in this country. There's no way they should be spending $106 million in legal fees last year — $106 million in lawyers to fight inherent and Aboriginal rights, which are recognized in Canada's constitution. It does not have to be that way.
That's what we've got to fix.
So, senator, it depends what issue it is. There's movement on some but not on others. We have got to really collectively put our heads and minds together. I don't care if it's Liberals, Conservatives or NDP in power. We have to work together. We're all in this together as First Nations people and non-indigenous people — as Canadians. Close the gaps. That's all we're looking for. Respect inherent and treaty rights in Canada's constitution. They're there. Let's find the way to do it together.
The Chair: Thank you. Very inspirational.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Not to change the subject, but you said housing conditions on First Nations are not up to standards, and there's not enough housing. So could you tell me why? I'm just leading up to another question.
Mr. Bellegarde: Do you want me to answer?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. Whoever can answer.
Mr. Bellegarde: Why there's not enough housing? The 2 per cent cap has been there since 1996. The funding model doesn't keep up with the fastest-growing segment of the population. In Saskatchewan, it is First Nations people. The funding model doesn't keep up with the need. It doesn't keep up with CPI or inflation. That's why we always say a new fiscal relationship is needed.
It has not kept up with the needs that are there. That's why it falls behind, even to the point where a lot of First Nations, as Merv indicated, are using their own-source revenues to meet that need.
That's why it hasn't kept up at all. That new fiscal relationship is really required and needed to meet the need.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you have licensed carpenters in your communities to build these homes?
Mr. Bellegarde: It varies, senator. Some reserves do have licensed carpenters. They have companies that can build these homes. Some people are even trying to build their own lumberyards to provide the lumber to these reserve communities.
Again, it varies. You have to look at each province, break it down in terms of the reserves that are there and what kind of relationship they have amongst themselves, working collectively together with tribal councils. What relationships do they have with towns where the lumber is? All of that. It varies. Some do; some don't.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Around my area, I see that most of the homes are built in the wintertime. Does that not weaken the foundation that they're working on in the wintertime? Would that be a problem with keeping up with the houses?
Mr. Bellegarde: I will let Joe and others answer that one, but I would say yes. Just as an example, they've been poor- quality homes being built over the last 20 to 30 years. In fact, in this report I put out to you, asbestos was a big issue. The sad part is — and this is a true story — a good friend of mine from Joe's reserve just passed away — just recently in the last few days. She was in a Regina hospital and the doctor determined she got cancer from asbestos. That's on- reserve housing again — poor-quality housing materials.
You might have a class-action lawsuit coming out here pretty quick. You have to watch all those risks. That's a very concrete example. It hurts.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you want to comment, Joe?
Mr. McKay: When they start building during the winter, there are procedures they are supposed to follow. At the tribal council level, we don't have that building code inspection compliance. We only do progress reports for CMHC.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: All right.
Mr. McKay: That's how far it goes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Who is responsible in your communities on housing issues? Who keeps up your house and who doesn't? Is it up to the people themselves or the chief and council?
Mr. Bellegarde: That's where a lot of it rests — the chief and council.
I don't have a housing authority on Little Black Bear. I was chief there. It rests with the portfolio holder, whoever has housing, so that councillor or whoever you assign it to. It's really problematic because capacity is an issue. Then there are not enough resources to meet the renovations that are required and to meet the demand. You have 125 people asking for new houses and you only get enough money for two.
Again, it rests with the chief and council. Each reserve is different. Some have greater capacity and some have set up housing authorities, while others haven't. You have to look at each reserve and each First Nation individually, and they're all at different levels in terms of capacity, of need and of just how they're structured as well.
The Chair: The committee has heard about the building code deficiencies in many communities, and it seems to be connected to poor housing quality, mould and safety issues. Would any of you have a recommendation about how that could be fixed?
Some have told us the government doesn't want to intervene because it's a sovereign First Nation's responsibility. It seems so obvious that it is a barrier to good quality.
Have you thought about how we could recommend that be addressed?
Mr. McKay: In the past six or eight months ago I had a meeting with CMHC in regard to this. I wanted them to actually building code compliance added. to our NISI contract — the Native Inspection Services Initiative contract. The only thing we do is progress reports on CMHC homes. I actually wanted them to put in the building code with it so there would be more visits from our building inspector to go out to reserves and make sure they're built properly. There was a disagreement and we moved on from there.
Senator Tannas: Mr. McKay, when you say ``progress,'' essentially what is that, just so that we're clear? Maybe I have it wrong, but it would be an inspection that says yes, a basement has been poured and the house is framed, et cetera. However, the basement concrete could be frozen and ready to fall apart next week, but that's not inspected. What's inspected is, yes, it's there, it appears to be there and we can fund the next draw or whatever. Is that what you mean when you say ``progress''?
Mr. McKay: That's correct.
Senator Wallace: Mr. McKay, just on the point, and the chair's question about the need for building codes and what your thoughts are on that, I took from what you said that you spoke to CMHC about that and whether they would support having compulsory codes and inspections in their requirements. They fund the construction, so that is not unlike mortgage financing in conventional housing.
That's from the financing perspective. However, the fact is the homes are owned by the band councils. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the band councils would want to have codes, building standards and inspection standards, regardless of whether the financing institution, CMHC, requires it?
Mr. McKay: The only problem is we don't get any money at tribal council.
Senator Wallace: I'm not talking about the money. I'm talking about if the band councils own the homes, to start, wouldn't they be the ones to say, ``We want to have these built to a standard. We're going to establish what that standard is. We do not want to have these homes running into issues with mould and so on''? I realize all of this costs money. That's a separate but related issue, I grant you that.
It is just the point. Because CMHC says they're not for their financing purposes going to require certain things on inspection or building standards, why wouldn't the chiefs and council say, ``We're going to implement them anyway because we want to have solid construction for what is built in our communities''?
Mr. Bellegarde: I agree with that totally. It does rest with the chief and council. That's jurisdiction; that's setting up their own housing policies, that's setting up their own housing authorities, that's making sure everything is in place and the standards and building codes are there to be met, no question. I would only ensure that if those expectations are there, adequate resources are in place to fully implement that.
I agree with what you're saying totally, but right now, to fully implement that, there is a lack of capacity. That's an issue. I agree with the concept because that's how it should be. That's recognition of jurisdiction — housing authorities and the chief and councils to implement those standards. They should be high standards.
Senator Wallace: What does exist today? I realize it does perhaps vary.
Mr. Bellegarde: It varies.
Senator Wallace: Are there not tribal councils that would bring together the various bands in the interests of each of the reserves to have a common standard? That way it would be much easier to deal with the federal government on funding if there was some common theme to it. It seems logical. Why doesn't it happen at the band council level?
Mr. Bellegarde: I agree with the concept. It's really good in terms of economies of scale and consistency and bringing together so that there is an easier way to deal with the government.
Senator Wallace: That includes the quality of the houses when you are finished.
Mr. Bellegarde: It always comes back to jurisdiction again. You have to know how the governance piece is structured. There are 633 First Nations communities, all at different levels. Some are independent. Some are part of tribal councils and some aren't, so you have to have a flexible approach.
I'm agreeing with your concept, it's just to ensure that there are adequate resources in place to fully implement that properly, effectively and efficiently. If we have a housing authority on Little Black Bear, how is that supported? How is that sustained? It comes back to the resources. I always say ensure there's adequate human resources to make sure the financial resources are in place to get the human resource to do the job.
Senator Wallace: It's a little bit of chicken and egg, though. The funding has to be there. You can have the greatest plan in the world, but if you don't have the money you can't implement it. I fully understand that. Isn't the starting point that you have to have the plan and you have to have the standards? If you don't have those, the money won't follow. It seems perhaps the standards aren't there to the extent necessary for the money to follow through.
Mr. Bellegarde: Valid point.
Senator Wallace: Thank you.
Mr. Buckle: Just on that, in talking to Joe, I think to most of the chiefs and councils the national housing code would be acceptable. It's just when Joe said he went to go and have a discussion saying rather than just progress payments we'd like to do the compliance to the code. Well, sorry, when he said there's slight disagreement, there were no funds for the tribal council to do it, with the limited resources to bring somebody qualified to inspect for a number of the First Nations in Meadow Lake area, which would be 300, 400, 500 kilometres from North Battleford and Prince Albert. You're paying mileage and you're paying a professional to come and do a national building code inspection. You have Joe and his staff right there in Meadow Lake.
It becomes cost-prohibitive, so do chiefs and councils want to build to the national building code? I would say all of them, of course. It becomes the logistics in a situation where you've got community for 400 kilometres from Meadow Lake, 600, 700 kilometres from Prince Albert and Saskatoon. That's the difficulty you face in having certified people come that can do those home inspections and that have the qualifications.
Senator Wallace: To the extent it is possible, having people trained in the communities is obviously the answer.
Mr. Buckle: That's what part of his proposal was. There's the issue.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, we spent a fair amount of time dealing with inspections, particularly fire inspections. Yesterday we had a couple of government departments, Labour and AANDC, and the role of fire inspections was being transferred to AANDC, and they in turn were going to hire or have regional or area groups deal with them.
Are you aware of the changes that are being made, of the transfer that's being made to AANDC? Have they been in touch with you? Will you be involved in this?
Mr. McKay: This is the first time I am hearing about this right now. I haven't heard it.
Mr. Bellegarde: It's a week old.
Mr. McKay: In regard to the fire inspections, we perform them. We even do fire extinguishers on our reserve. We're in the process of getting the fire trucks certified also. I don't know if that answers your question.
Senator Sibbeston: I'm always suspicious of government. Whenever they're here, they always try to put on a story that everything is wonderful and rosy. Yesterday, AANDC said that April 1 they would have the responsibility for fire inspections and they were working or were going to work with regional groups who are doing this, basically having them perform the fire inspections. I was curious to know whether they were telling the truth. So I'm asking you: Have you heard from them? Is that true?
Mr. McKay: I didn't get an email from anybody, no.
Mr. Bellegarde: Neither have I.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Buckle mentioned revolving fund models for housing that could operate in individual bands or in collective First Nations. Is this something that is already done somewhere, or is that kind of a wish? I take it that plan would involve a certain amount of money that's made available on a yearly basis. Some of the monies would be spent on housing, but there would be a continuous output and inflow of money into it. That sounds like a very good plan. Is that anywhere near reality at all?
Mr. Buckle: Right now, it's a conceptual model that we're looking at. The former manager of housing at the federation, who is no longer employed after April 1 —
Mr. Bellegarde: After a few million-dollar cutbacks.
Mr. Buckle: — is working with us because of his knowledge in policy. We know there will be challenges in any of the models we're proposing to our chiefs, because to some degree we're not sure that the funding departments have thought of the flexibility of moving into an aggregate sort of combined housing authority with the concept of a revolving fund.
I go to Chief Bellegarde's comments: There will be some meetings, lobbying and cajoling to try to say this is a concept that we think can work; do you want to work with us, and let's do it as a demonstration project to see if it's effective. We're just going to present to our chiefs a series of approaches and models that can be developed over time and, hopefully, not erode their local autonomy to a degree where they don't want to participate. That becomes the issue.
I don't know if it exists in other areas. I've heard in some other locations there may be some form of a fund, but it may be through a loan mechanism or it may be through own-source revenues. Whether there's anything beyond, I think the one sort of program that exists, which I read in one of the sessions that you had, might work. We're looking at several models.
The Chair: By the way, we are very interested in revolving funds. We've seen some examples and we'll see some more. We will get on the road, and we'll look to your thoughts on that further on.
Senator Moore: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I want to have a quick follow-up to one of Senator Sibbeston's questions, and then I have some others.
Do I understand from the three of you that this is the first time you have heard about the department taking over the fire inspection services?
Mr. Bellegarde: Formally.
Mr. McKay: Yes.
Senator Moore: Formally. I asked that because we heard from the department that they sent out notices in writing about two years ago to say this is coming, get ready. So we're not?
Mr. Bellegarde: Senator, with all the cutbacks and everything else happening to all the Aboriginal regional organizations across Canada, capacity is a big issue. We have 50 million letters from every department. You don't have the capacity to look at everything and be on top of everything. That's an issue. Maybe they are correct in saying that two years ago we gave all the notices to all the tribal councils and PTOs, so what's the big deal here, Indians?
Senator Moore: As it gets closer to this April 1, 2014, start date, did you get something three months ago or six months ago, saying: ``Guys, we're getting closer. Are you ready?'' Did that happen?
Mr. Bellegarde: No. I'm going to say no in a respectful way.
Senator Moore: So, 633 First Nations. How many tribes did you say that was, Chief Bellegarde?
Mr. Bellegarde: Fifty-eight different nations. I go by language, senator.
Senator Moore: Okay. So you go by language. The tribal councils, you said there are 100 of those?
Mr. Bellegarde: Roughly.
Senator Moore: Are they made up of tribes of the same language, or are they mixed?
Mr. Bellegarde: Mixed.
Senator Moore: When a tribal council meets with Ottawa, does it have the support of all the nations that make up that council? Can it deal, negotiate and come to a decision and go back and say, ``Guys, this is what we've got; this is where we are. If you're not happy, I'll go back''? Does it have that kind of clout, or do we still go back to the jurisdiction thing?
Mr. Bellegarde: That's a good question. It's a little bit of both, senator. I'd have to do my Indian 101 studies in terms of governance model.
Senator Moore: I'd like to know.
Mr. Bellegarde: I'll use me as an example. We always have the Creator on top. We're connected. There are many roads to the Creator, let's get on one. The Creator is up there and then the people. The people select and, because of the Corbiere decision, everybody has the right to vote for chief and council. Do you really need CAP? That's another story. Chiefs and councils represent their total membership. First order of government: Little Black Bear. We elect our chief and council. That's one order, if you will. That's the first one. That's on top. Then we belong to an agency called the File Hills agency. There are five reserves that work collectively there for services and programs. There's no election for an agency chief yet, but we work together collectively.
Senator Moore: This is within your council, a separate division?
Mr. Bellegarde: Within my area. Then I'm working. Then I go down from there to a tribal council, File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council. There are 11 reserves that work together collectively as tribal councils. Then Little Black Bear belongs to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; one out of 74, a PTO. We also belong to AFN, on the bottom. We're one of the 633. Then Little Black Bear entered into Treaty 4. Little Black Bear is part of the Cree Nation. That's what we have. In terms of governance in this model, tribal councils were not created by Indians. They were created by the Department of Indian Affairs.
Senator Moore: They were?
Mr. Bellegarde: They were.
Senator Moore: It wasn't some of the chiefs getting together?
Mr. Bellegarde: No. They didn't get together and say ``Hey, let's form a tribal council.'' That didn't happen. Indian Affairs created tribal councils. They started devolving programs from Indian Affairs over to tribal councils. They were called district chiefs at one time. We morphed into tribal councils. We're so divided and disorganized as Indians — even nations. Do you think there are 633 nations in Canada? There are 58, but we're not organized by the nation. Respectfully, I say: Was Canada founded on two founding nations, French and English? No. There are 58 other First Nations that were here, too, that had a hand.
Senator Moore: I hear you.
Mr. Bellegarde: That's our governance piece.
Senator Moore: I didn't know that the department created the councils. I thought it was a bunch of chiefs getting together and saying: ``Listen, we can do better as a group. Let's go at this as a team.'' But no.
Mr. Bellegarde: There are certain unified tribal councils, but I used to be in a tribal council for 12 years. What I used to hate is when someone would say, ``I don't get along with Chief Bellegarde. I'm pulling out of this tribal council.'' The consistency and the continuity are the people and the first order of government, which is the chief and council. That's constant. The other thing that's constant is the relationship with the treaty. The other thing that's constant is the nationhood, your language.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Bellegarde spoke in his native language.]
That's constant. These other things, Little Black Bear can pull out of the agency, tribal council, FSIN and AFN, but over here it's constant.
Senator Moore: Okay. 101, I get it.
Mr. Bellegarde: Sorry.
Senator Moore: Some stuff I didn't know.
Mr. Bellegarde: I get excited. I'm sorry.
Senator Moore: This is good. I love passion and integrity. You can't beat it.
I want to touch on what Senator Wallace was asking about with building codes. We've heard so much about this from various witnesses.
Mr. McKay, you said that about eight months ago, you were talking with CMHC about that, and you had a disagreement, so it went by the wayside. Was that something that happened between you and them in negotiating, or was it something you took back and you couldn't get the people in your area to go along with? What happened there?
I think it's important. It's important to the way things are done, the quality of the housing down the road, the value of it, the ability to finance, all of that. What happened there? Can it be fixed?
Mr. McKay: Yes, it can be fixed.
Senator Moore: What was the issue? What were the key stumbling blocks? What was the disagreement?
Mr. McKay: Code compliance was one of them. It was based on money, finances. That's what it was.
Senator Moore: You need to pay. I understand.
Mr. McKay: More resources are needed. That's the bottom line.
Senator Moore: Resources to pay to educate building inspectors or just to hire one? What was the vision, to have one per council? How were you approaching this?
Mr. McKay: You have to speak up a little; I can't hear what you're asking.
Senator Moore: My question is: What was the approach? Was the approach to have an inspector per council? How were you approaching this?
Mr. McKay: We already have an inspector hired in-house, which is a Level 2 inspector.
Senator Moore: So you need resources to do what? If he's in-house now, is he being paid?
Mr. McKay: Yes.
Senator Moore: So you need additional resources to do what with regard to that person and him doing his job in your region?
Mr. McKay: It's the NISI contract.
Senator Moore: What do you mean by that?
Mr. McKay: Native Inspection Services Initiative. CMHC has an agreement with tribal council to do the services for NISI.
Senator Moore: It's not in the agreement?
Mr. McKay: The code compliance is not in the agreement, no.
Senator Moore: If everybody knows it's good and desirable, why don't we amend the agreement?
Mr. McKay: That's what I was trying to do.
Senator Moore: And then what? Did they say no?
Mr. McKay: Yes.
The Chair: Committee members, when CMHC came to us, they didn't mention this program, and it doesn't seem to be on their website any longer. Through our capable staff, we have asked for more information about the NISI program.
Senator Moore: Mr. Buckle, you mentioned that some have and some don't have the shelter allowance and therefore reserves have to use their own revenues to make up the shortfall. Were you given direction by the department to do that? Or did they say, ``Look, we know you have some money; use it for that''? Or was it a matter of you don't have any other source of funding, so you have to use your capital reserve monies to do that? How does that work?
Mr. Buckle: It's up to the chiefs and councils, if they have own-source revenues. With the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, the member First Nations are equal owners of several business enterprises, such as a charter airline, gas caverns, a sawmill, et cetera. Some of the First Nations used money from the dividends of those companies prior to the downturn in the economy to supplement building houses because of the significant need and pressures in the community. They just said that's the priority. It was their decision. The department wasn't around saying, ``You have to'' or ``you should.'' It's a voluntary decision. Not all First Nations did; some did.
Senator Wallace: I have a brief supplementary question. Just to Senator Moore's point about the change in fire inspection services that occurred April 1 and whether you had received notice of that, Chief Bellegarde, I thought you said not formally. When you said that, it reminded me of when we heard from Aboriginal Affairs on that topic — was it last week? I recall their saying they had notified the tribal councils. I would think the expectation was that the tribal councils would notify the bands and councils. Whether that has happened, I don't know. I think that's where the formal reporting went from Aboriginal Affairs, through the tribal councils.
The Chair: Maybe I can assist. I did have a quick look at the transcript, and the officials from AANDC were not very clear about how well the communications had rolled out. They said they would get back to us. They said they thought they dealt with the regional offices. They did commit to getting back to us with more detail. I don't know how much further we can go on this one.
Senator Raine: I would just like to say, though, to our guests — thank you very much for being here — that at least I personally feel that changing the fire inspection services from Labour to Aboriginal Affairs was probably going to be more effective, more efficient, and really a better use of the opportunity for capacity building.
But if you don't mind, I would like to take a little step sideways here. Listening to you talk about the difficulties of building houses, enough houses, and the quality that you want, I would like to ask if you are using modular homes at all. If so, what has your experience been with that? Do you see that as an opportunity to build off site and transport in with perhaps a little less total cost in the end? I would like to get your comments on that. Perhaps, Chief Bellegarde, you could go first.
Mr. Bellegarde: Senator, some bands are doing that. Again, each community is different. Some have a good relationship with local towns. Some build on reserves. Others use RTMs. Others look at innovative ways, like modular homes to be brought in. The answer is yes. It varies across Canada. What is the most cost-effective way to get good- quality housing to the reserves? That's the question, and the answer varies. It's very important.
I should point out that in the North, the costs are horrendous. In northern Saskatchewan, there used to be fly-in communities, such as Black Lake, Wollaston Lake and Fond-du-Lac, where housing is a big issue; you have to barge materials in or use winter roads, all of those things.
In the North, I would urge everybody to look at the higher transportation costs. That has to be factored in. The same thing in the South. There are always innovative and creative ways to look at housing, and reserves are doing that. Again, it varies from community to community.
Senator Raine: In terms of the financing of homes, somebody pointed out the other day that when you talk to Aboriginal Affairs and people start talking about housing units, that's sort of like dehumanizing what we're doing here because we are building homes.
Mr. Bellegarde: Good point.
Senator Raine: And homes are kind of a contract between a person and people, a family, and their building.
I just want to know what experience you have in terms of making your housing units homes, so that you connect the users, the families who live in those homes, with the homes in a way that they can eventually perhaps rent to own or have a connection with their home. Are you doing this? Are you looking at that? I know that across the country there are First Nations who are doing that, with great success. I'm wondering what your experience in Saskatchewan is.
Mr. Bellegarde: We'd like to emulate and model those communities that are having great success with that model, because that's the whole challenge. In each reserve, some are involved with CMHC. That's one program. You have the AANDC houses and then you have the CMHC houses.
Senator Raine: Where are the homes?
Mr. Bellegarde: Exactly. Individual home ownership, where does that fit into that? Because chiefs and councils, the bands, own the AANDC homes. But if you don't have a housing policy or housing committee in place, or you don't have the capacity there, how do you ensure that those individuals have that sense of home that this is ours, or is it the bands? That's a challenge in every reserve, to get that home feeling. It comes back again to how do you start evolving the community in terms of getting First Nations people to think that way, that this is our home, as opposed to a unit. It's a whole mindset.
Again, all of those 600 First Nations are at different levels. Those models you talk about should be and could be emulated. It comes back to the housing authority.
I can only speak from experience at Little Black Bear, my home, where I was chief. It's very difficult. It's difficult and challenging, because we didn't have a housing authority in place. We had a mixture of AANDC houses and CMHC houses. But those CMHC houses, it's almost like they were motivating people to stay on welfare because of that housing subsidy.
Merv talked about the difference in housing between Ontario, Quebec and B.C. Those are the only three provinces that have that. That should be dealt with again for the other provinces. You have to start looking at the AANDC homes now, the people who are in those homes. Why can't that subsidy apply there? Because we can't keep up with renovations. We don't get enough funding from AANDC for renovations. You can't keep up with the need for housing, so you have to look at alternative ways and means to deal with that.
I know I'm ranting, but it's a big issue. I go back to the sixth versus sixty-third. We have to close that gap.
Senator Beyak: Thank you, gentlemen. Senator Watt is not with us this evening, but he had a question last week that no one could answer: Who holds the insurance on reserve homes, for fire, for lawsuits, smoke detectors, compliance? Do you gentlemen know that?
Mr. Bellegarde: Do you want to take a stab at that?
Mr. McKay: The First Nations that I deal with, they use a whole coverage of insurance to cover everything. They go out and find the insurance broker that will give them the best price.
Senator Beyak: And that's the band council?
Mr. Bellegarde: Chiefs and councils.
Mr. McKay: Chiefs and councils, yes.
Senator Meredith: Most of my questions have been answered already, but it goes back to something you raised, Mr. Buckle, with respect to a new funding mechanism. You mentioned that in your speech. We know that AANDC and CMHC provide funding for on-reserve housing. How well do you think those two programs are working? This new funding formula or mechanism you're looking at, can you elaborate a little bit for us on what this new funding program would look like? As we've heard from various witnesses here, and as we're trying to put our report together, we're trying to look at all the angles and what's been reported to us, what's working, what's not working and what's new that could potentially work to alleviate the great shortfall that is on these First Nation communities. It's disheartening.
When you talk, Mr. McKay, about the backup of sewage and the lack of proper infrastructure and codes and so forth, it's quite disheartening. But we want to put a concise report together. We're speaking to governments, to the bureaucrats, to those who you are constantly lobbying with to make sure we get it right. Just elaborate for me, Mr. Buckle, on that.
Mr. Buckle: Basically, I'm not an expert on the housing side. Kevin McLeod, who worked with the federation, has significant experience in operating a housing program in another First Nation, La Ronge, where they had home ownership and various options and models. When we had our technical working group with Joe and one of his staff, and Kevin, Kevin is the one who said, ``This isn't going to be easy, because we're going to have to fight sort of two elephants: AANDC and CMHC. We're going to come at them with a model they probably haven't totally thought of yet.''
I've worked a number of years in the civil service. You get your rule book out and somebody comes and says, ``We just want to tear up page 6 and 8 and rewrite it for you.'' You can get a whole bunch of people flinching.
What we want to talk about is a conceptual approach with the chiefs. If they give a principled approval to work further on it, then the discussions with the funding agents, the CMHC and AANDC, come. Can this conceptual model work? Can you modify what you're doing in your current practices? Not a major change, but just how you do business. Can you accommodate this new approach?
It goes to what Chief Bellegarde has said — sitting down and talking: ``We've got this idea. Do you think it will work? We think it will work. The chiefs have said we should go and do some work with you and come back to them with something.''
We don't have a magic wand to know it's going to be successful. We haven't completed the actual models yet. We have them roughed out. We'll have to do some costing and detailed roles and responsibilities, and try to address some mechanism that may involve Health Canada and that will involve CMHC and AANDC.
It won't be easy. Our paper is going to the chiefs: ``Here are some ideas on how we think we might be able to do something new and innovative in housing. Are you willing to let Joe and some of his staff do that and talk to the agencies to get it done?''
We're hopeful because of what's happening here at this committee and the realization that there are some challenges around housing, that they may have that flexibility. I like the term ``demonstration project,'' because I always say it lasts five years longer than a pilot project, but give us a chance to prove it works.
I had a director general when I worked in Saskatchewan region who was from here. He said, ``People have to recognize that not all of the smart people are on the east side of the Manitoba border.'' I've never forgotten that statement.
Senator Meredith: Mr. Bellegarde, any comments on that?
Mr. Bellegarde: Senator, that is a good question. Accessible housing, but I think the point about long-term funding so you can leverage. We can't do any leveraging with one-year funding agreements, even the five years. The recommendation is to look at 10-, 15-, 25-year funding arrangements so you can leverage. It's all about leveraging. That's one part of the puzzle. I think of John Beaucage's housing fund. I don't know if he presented here or not, but there's a $350-million fund that's capacity building. Again, accessing that; support those kinds of things and build upon those things. That's just on the financial piece.
Again, going back to the 2 per cent cap, I can remember when Mr. Buckle was at Indian Affairs and we would have capital agreements every fiscal year. You have 16 reserves. You have 25 houses. How will we allocate them? There's a certain amount. I remember the dialogue and debates amongst the chiefs. The big bands would get a little bit more. But we have to give one house in Nekaneet, to the small reserve by Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. The big bands, the big chiefs, would allow that. Richard Poorman would always do that. The chiefs would have to come together. Moving away from that model, which has been there for close to 20 years, that has to change. That's my message.
The Chair: I would like to confirm to you we have heard from Mr. Beaucage of the First Nations Market Housing Fund and also the First Nations Financial Management Board, and thank you for that reference.
Gentlemen, we have covered an enormous amount of ground tonight. It has been very useful and helpful to us. From the Crown-First Nation Gathering, housing as a human and treaty right, First Nations governance and structure 101 in 3 minutes, challenges of dealing with the federal government, inequities, challenges on the ground of maintenance, construction and concrete recommendations for reform — I really want to thank you all very much for the thought and effort you put into this and for a very good exchange that we had here even despite some formalities of our committee structure.
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.
Before we break, colleagues, two things: At our last meeting, our proceedings were not televised because there were three other committees meeting. I made a careless and a bad joke, saying that perhaps other committees were more important than ours.
I want to clarify that I do not consider any other committees more important than ours. Our work is extremely important. We have seen that tonight from these compelling challenges. I do regret what was a bad attempt at humour around a serious subject.
Finally, colleagues, as Chief Bellegarde noted, notice was given yesterday, and we understand an important piece of legislation on First Nations education is expected to be tabled in Parliament tomorrow morning.
The chief urged us to get on top of this urgently, so in that connection I want to tell my colleagues on the committee, it is very short notice, but we have all been invited, all senators and their staff, to a briefing tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon to get a briefing on this important subject, which this committee has also studied and which of course is related to the housing and infrastructure issue we're dealing with. All senators and their staff are invited to this briefing tomorrow at noon. I hope it will be possible for a good number of us to make it despite the short notice. The location is room 180 at 1 Wellington Street. That's the building next to the Château Laurier. I wanted to make sure that you were made aware of that.
(The committee adjourned.)