Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 6 - Evidence - May 13, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:34 a.m. to study the challenges relating to First Nations infrastructure on reserves.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or via CPAC on the Web.
My name is Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. I am deputy chair of the committee. Our chair, Senator Patterson, is unable to be with us this morning and sends his regrets.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. 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, including housing, community infrastructure and innovative opportunities for financing, and more effective collaborative strategies.
Today we will hear from the Atlantic Policy Congress, which represents 37 chiefs of Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Innu and Passamaquoddy First Nations. The Atlantic Policy Congress has created the Atlantic First Nations Housing & Infrastructure Network to provide advice and strategic direction in the areas of housing, water, waste water and emergency response planning.
Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witness from the Atlantic Policy Congress, John Paul, the executive director.
Mr. Paul, we look forward to your presentation, which will be followed by questions from senators. Please proceed.
John G. Paul, Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: Thank you, and good morning, honourable members. As you know, my name is John Paul and I am with the Atlantic Policy Congress. I'm here on behalf of our chiefs on some of the challenges but also to offer some practical solutions relating to First Nations housing and infrastructure. Our organization, as mentioned, is to research, analyze and develop alternatives to federal policies that affect our Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu First Nations communities in Atlantic Canada as well as Quebec; and we have one community with bands into the U.S.A.
We will always hold the position that our First Nations communities deserve safe and healthy homes and overall community infrastructure now and in the future. As our people and communities continue to grow and thrive, the demand for First Nations infrastructure is steadily increasing at a pace that does not match available funding. It is difficult as a leader to have to tell our people and communities that, due to federal funding cuts, they will not receive the adequate housing or buildings they need to meet basic needs like all other Canadians. The lack of adequate infrastructure forces our people to live in overcrowded conditions, leading to high levels of stress and increased risk of serious health issues.
The Deputy Chair: Could I interrupt for a moment? We have your presentation, and it's in English only. If the committee members would like a copy, would you pass a motion that we can distribute it, even though we don't have it translated into French yet? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: We'll pass that out.
Mr. Paul: Our organization created a partnership with government that we call the Aboriginal First Nations Housing & Infrastructure Network. Created in 2007 by a chiefs' resolution, the network is comprised of one decision level making committee that provides strategic direction and advice to all regional activities concerning housing, water, waste water and emergency management. Individual areas are addressed through working groups consisting of First Nations representatives as well as federal partners, who work collaboratively toward innovative solutions to these important issues facing all our Atlantic First Nations communities.
A facilitated session was held last November 21 and 22 in one of our largest communities, Eskasoni First Nation in Nova Scotia. It included First Nations housing managers and other decision makers from key federal departments such as Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Health Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to discuss and identify the true housing and infrastructure issues in the Atlantic region.
The working group agreed that the following were the five overarching issues related to housing and infrastructure: The first issue related to governance and local leadership. As First Nations leaders, we tend to have to deal with the issues of the day and what's being passed either as legislation or what the federal government sees as a priority. We feel that housing has fallen off the radar in the eyes of the federal government, but we still see it as a critical priority for all our communities. For First Nations leaders, there needs to be a serious reminder to the federal government that housing must remain a priority for Atlantic First Nations communities.
First Nations community houses continue to be the biggest asset in all our communities and, therefore, should continue to be the biggest priority as there is a continuing need for maintenance and renovations and a requirement to build new houses to address the current backlog and the needs of a growing population. We need at least 3,500 homes just to address the needs today. Our people are consistently talking to leadership and band administrations about the need for housing, and this issue must remain as a top priority. Housing is an essential part of the fabric of each and every community.
External government limitations and restrictions: The topic of the federal government limitations and restrictions as an inhibitor to the progression of First Nations housing has always been present and persists today. These restrictions can come in the form of funding cuts to essential programs or new programs and very serious restrictions or conditions put on by the government without, in some cases, consultation.
A recent example of this is CMHC's continued cutbacks or reductions in section 95 homes in Atlantic Canada. Based on the yearly figures, we have seen a drastic drop in the number of units being allocated from 75 units in 2011-12, to 41 in 2012-13, to 38 this year, in 2013-14. These are drastic cuts to all our communities and they lead to many other problems, such as increased overcrowding and added pressure on the housing staff.
Another challenge facing Atlantic First Nation communities is the passing of legislation with no tools or financial or human resources to help adjust to new laws or regulations. APC has done a tremendous job with our clean water initiative, proactively addressing the regulations of Bill S-8; however, there will always be new legislation passed that First Nations communities will struggle to find alternatives for and have to live with whether we agree or not.
A more transparent consultation process is needed for any new legislation. It has been well documented that in our communities, responses from First Nations to Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, have been primarily negative. During the draft stages, common criticisms of the bill included inadequate consultation, failure to recognize the First Nations' right to govern the issue, and the overall need to improve First Nations' access to the justice system. Now that Bill S-2 has achieved Royal Assent, protections from section 89 of the Indian Act could be challenged by allowing a spouse to claim damages for unlawful transfer of a property in a community. As well, there is the possibility that upon the divorce or separation of a First Nation and non-First Nation couple, a non-First Nation person could be awarded the right to occupy the home. Legislation should never pass when there are still serious questions that remain.
Analogous concerns arise when new government initiatives and programs happen with little or no warning. A prime example is the new National Building Code compliance requirements under CMHC's section 95 housing subsidy program. In February 2014, our Atlantic communities received a letter stating that on the onset of the new fiscal year, 2014-15, First Nations would be required to submit certificates of code compliance at a minimum of three stages of the building of a house. They are pre-backfill inspection — foundation; pre-drywall inspection — framing, rough-in and insulation and vapour barriers; and a final inspection.
On the surface, it seems like a very good idea to bring in inspectors to ensure that houses on reserves are all built to code. However, if proper consultation had been completed on this issue, CMHC should have realized some of the negative effects these requirements will have on First Nations given little time to prepare for implementation.
Each National Building Code inspection will cost between $350 to $500 per inspection and about $1,050 to $1,500 per unit, for each unit to administer the inspections and all the costs falling directly on the First Nation. CMHC has stated they will not be paying to perform the code compliance inspections; they will be part of the overall project cost and thus escalate the costs of construction for each unit in all our communities.
Section 95 subsidy homes continue to be the primary source of new housing in the Atlantic First Nation communities, and I've already detailed the actual number of homes, which has been declining.
These inspections will also drive up project costs by prolonging building times. I know some communities have to hire security to watch their construction sites to ensure appliances, windows and expensive wire don't get stolen from the units. It's unfair to ask our communities to stretch their fixed funding further.
Furthermore, code compliance has also ignored the role of our Native Inspection Services Initiative, called NISI. Under the code compliance requirements, NISI inspectors are not qualified to perform the inspections, and no funding has been made available to train them to make them qualified. In administering the inspections, it would be more appropriate for bands to use their funding to train NISI inspectors, who are mostly First Nations people, to be qualified home inspectors to do these inspections. This way, communities can have First Nations people they trust doing the inspections instead of somebody else outside the community actually doing the inspections.
If we as First Nations are to rise up and help overcome the challenges placed before us, the federal government must also heed our words and learn from our lessons so we can work together for a better tomorrow to provide quality housing.
In terms of social issues, as you know, our communities face many social and economic issues and challenges. These issues have a direct correlation to the housing quality on each and every reserve. A house may be built to code, with all the appropriate amenities to make it last, prevent mould and ensure energy efficiency. However, if the person residing in the home doesn't take proper care of the unit, the house will deteriorate quickly.
Deterioration of units as a result of social issues can come from many angles. It could be caused by the occupant suffering from a serious substance abuse or simply a lack of key life skills needed to properly care and maintain a home. Deterioration of our units can happen because the number of people in one unit is too large to be consistent with the daily upkeep of eight to ten people in one house. As well, some of our people are too dependent on the First Nations to fix any and all minor repairs. This takes up considerable time of the community housing staff, which could be more focused addressing major housing needs.
In terms of operations, the Atlantic First Nations have a need for improved operations regarding housing on reserves. First Nations are similar to other Atlantic communities when it comes to skilled workers in trades being lured away from home by the promise of big money in the West, on even in our own area, Labrador, to work on construction. There is a great, real need for incentives for our communities to retain these skilled workers, not only to apply their skills and knowledge toward the progression of a better First Nations community, but also to be an example to the younger generation that our First Nations communities are a good place to live and work. However, we will not be able to retain our workers if the federal government continues to insist that the Atlantic First Nations continue to do more with less and less funding.
In terms of asset management, while our current asset management strategies maintain the day-to-day status quo, that's unsustainable. A major reason for our need for strong asset management strategies is that there is a lack of an enforceable housing policy in Atlantic First Nations communities. Having enforceable housing policies in place on-reserve would allow each First Nation administration to streamline the housing work, setting work priorities, as well as having a precedent in place for exactly what tenants' and homeowners' responsibilities are, now and in the future. Further, having community housing policies in place can lead to other positive outcomes, such as the implementation of appropriate rental regimes, creating housing committees or advisory bodies, and also dealing with possible dispute resolution mechanisms outside the chief and council in some cases.
Now in 2014, the APC continues to actively prepare and strive for opportunities to create real improvements in First Nations housing and infrastructure for health and safety of our communities. We have a housing group at our organization made up of the housing managers of each of the Atlantic provinces. We have taken the time to look at what some of the problems are. The working group has been able to prioritize these ideas and what can be completed in the short term for the benefit of the long term in order to properly address these challenges before us. Some of these housing managers have decades of knowledge and experience working in housing.
Here are some of the things the committee can look at in terms of solutions for issues.
The big issue we see is trying to engage our young people in the community in housing and in careers. The state of housing on-reserve has been a long-standing concern of First Nations leaders and continues to be a key social determinant of health. One of the priorities identified in the housing working group was to engage First Nations youth and get their direct input on how to address housing issues. The input will help in the development of education and awareness material that is culturally relevant and appropriate for First Nations in Atlantic Canada on housing issues which impact health. As well, their input will help our First Nations determine what is needed to retain our future skilled workers and leaders in our communities.
APC is currently working toward the modernization of an existing CMHC tool kit on housing. The tool kit is a tremendous opportunity to educate young people on home maintenance and all the potential impacts on health.
In September of 2010, the housing group recommended acquiring copies of a CMHC tool kit called "My Home is my Tipi," and piloted it within Atlantic First Nations schools. The tool kit was originally developed and created by curriculum writers from First Nations communities in the Western provinces of Canada. The tool kit ranges from kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculums that teach youth about home maintenance and safety through videos, books and pictures. Each school we have dealt with has piloted the tool kit and agreed that the material inside will be very beneficial to First Nations youth. However, each school has indicated that the material needed to be altered to our own circumstances in Atlantic Canada. The modification of this youth-focused tool kit on houses was considered a great opportunity by housing managers to educate First Nations youth on the importance of house maintenance and health impact, at the same time gauging youth and teacher interest for a specific Atlantic First Nations curriculum.
In 2014, we changed the name to "My Home is My Wigwam." It is on its way to making an Atlantic First Nations-based tool kit specific to Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu culture, knowledge and values to be taught in Atlantic First Nations schools and various programs in the community. This will need continued support and funding in order to help teach young people how to appreciate and maintain the homes they live in.
First Nations youth also need to be engaged in discussions on careers and trades focused in First Nations housing and how we all collectively achieve this. Current housing managers in the communities are not so young these days, so they've been doing a lot to advocate for the retention of these young people or young workers in our community. Part of the reason for the lack of housing staff on reserves is that often in the communities there's only one person who runs the whole show in the community. We need to get our youth interested in this stuff and give them a way to give back to their communities.
In terms of asset condition assessment of First Nations homes and lands, in the area of assets, like the case study we provided to the committee on First Nations water and waste water asset condition assessment in 2013, it has been recommended that we do a similar case study on housing in our communities. The case study would clearly identify data on housing conditions and show what the issues are and present it back to the government to see how together, collaboratively, we can address these issues. This will require further funding resources over time in order to get an accurate picture of what our communities need to live in health and safety.
First Nations land is another big issue that will need to be looked at in all areas of housing and infrastructure. As the population grows continuously, we'll need more land expansion on-reserve. This needs to be kept in mind, especially when First Nations are already looking for improvements or expansions to their water and waste water infrastructures.
One interesting thing I want to talk about that you may or may not be aware of is a project we're working towards. Basically, we feel it's a proactive and innovative solution to addressing the current state of water and waste water systems under a possible P3 approach based on a business plan, including a First Nations water authority, to handle all the issues related to water and waste water in our communities.
This year, a few weeks ago, April 8 and 9, our chiefs adopted a resolution to direct our network to work collaboratively with the university through the Centre for Water Resources Studies, basically to undertake the next steps in going forward through the work of moving the Clean Water Initiative in terms of forming an Atlantic First Nations water authority. This resolution basically tells the network to continue to take the lead role in the activities associated with incorporating an Atlantic First Nations water authority, including the finalization of term sheets, obtaining band council resolutions from each community for participation in the authority, incorporation of the authority itself, and obtaining band council resolutions from each community with respect to land designation for water and infrastructure in the communities.
The network will take a lead role in continued activities, with the exploration of alternative funding models, which includes the P3 model, and it would be required to bring communities up to the proposed legislation, as per the upcoming legislation and regulations, and provide a long-term solution to the operation of water and waste water systems.
The concept of a First Nations water authority is sweeping across the country. It has allowed communities to research advanced solutions to address critical water issues for their people and communities. This was very evident when we spoke at a number of national and regional conferences with housing and infrastructure staff and organizations, and it has encouraged us to continue a growing dialogue and to identify a number of best practices between groups across the country. Such is the case with other First Nations in Ontario and Manitoba and Winnipeg, and others have passed resolutions to look at ways to create a water authority to pursue their efforts in water.
It has been identified that our efforts at the APC are helping pave the way for the concept of a First Nations water authority through the many studies that our organization has conducted over the years, and we are considered a lead on a lot of this work. But now in 2014, APC, with a team of people, mostly First Nation experts working on land, water, communications and funding, are trying to work on a schedule that will further dialogue and input in terms of what our communities will do about water and waste water systems. This is part of our long-standing efforts and work to continue to actively research water assets and the land they reside on and to ensure engineering work is done for all our communities to create a more detailed, comprehensive, accurate costing of assets and future operating costs, within plus or minus 15 per cent. This is an actual requirement of the P3 business case. Ultimately, APC will engage all our communities and all stakeholders to obtain their direct input and support of this significant water and infrastructure initiative as a means now and in the future to help carry out what our vision is in clean water, and try to come up with a long-term funding solution that will last 25 or 30 years.
We must look at the entire life cycle of these systems, not just the cost of taking them from where they are to where they need to be. We, like everybody else, have to look 25 or 30 years out to ensure that the systems we build today are maintained, operated and sustained for the entire period and that basically, the fundamental vision of this work is to provide both our communities and our people with safe water. The vision is very simple, as is putting us in control of that vision to make it happen.
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has released a couple of reports on Aboriginal economic development. One was entitled Sharing Canada's Prosperity — A Hand Up, Not a Handout. Further, in March of this year, another Senate report was released entitled Study of Land Management and Sustainable Economic Development on First Nations Reserve Lands. These are goods reports that make a number of pertinent recommendations that do get tied into our discussions. I wanted to make that point to the committee and to tell you that, because it does help get people to understand the importance of creating a vision of your future and to understand it in the context of what is reality, what you can do and what you can accomplish by building on work that's been done and also sharing work that you're doing today.
All our efforts will continue with an approach to find solutions to situations on-reserve. We're trying to find viable solutions for this work. We can't build houses in the air; we can't build infrastructure on balloons in our communities. Infrastructure and housing issues are linked to the way our lands are managed in our communities. The quality of our housing and infrastructure directly impacts the current and future economic viability of our communities. You recognized this when you addressed infrastructure deficits in off-reserve communities through the Building Canada Fund by noting safe, healthy, viable communities have pleasant spaces, sufficient infrastructure and services which attract and retain skilled labour and thereby attract business and economic development. Are First Nations any different? Our communities require the same things as other Canadian communities. We need access to the same institutions and services available to our neighbours everywhere.
While you continue to take this overall piecemeal approach to our communities; while AANDC continues to approach us through the lens of programs, rather than addressing our needs as growing communities, we will continue to struggle to meet the capacity requirements which are simply too large and to experience funding deficits because the costs continue to grow.
You've solved some of these issues, we feel, with some other Canadian communities over the exact amount of time. But, as you know, a lot of the communities continue to be held prisoner by the conditions of the Indian Act, and in some cases it doesn't help growth or change. You've recognized the communities as economic engines, but we still remain wards. We want to have the same autonomy, opportunity and safety as all Canadians. Most of all, we want to work collaboratively and in partnership with basically anyone and everyone to ensure the fate of our infrastructure and housing is similar to that of everybody else in Canada in a lot of cases.
I've said at this committee before, and at different committees, in my mind a lot of this is a public safety issue. All we want is for our communities in Atlantic Canada to be healthy, viable and economically self-reliant in the future. That's the vision we want, and that's the vision we want to work toward. We want to work with government and with all the other stakeholders, including industry and the private sector, to help realize that vision.
As I mentioned earlier, the work that the committee has done on some of this stuff helps move the markers out. So thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your comprehensive presentation, Mr. Paul. You've given us a more holistic overview of housing and infrastructure rather than approaching it in a piecemeal fashion, as you say, as government often would.
We are open to questions, but perhaps I'll start off with a contentious question to some extent.
Often the general public will look at a First Nation reserve and they will look at homes and say, "They're run down and need repair. What is the matter with those people? Why aren't they looking after their homes? Maybe we should promote home ownership and that would solve it."
What would be your response to someone who said something like that to you?
Mr. Paul: It's interesting because my home community in Atlantic Canada is Membertou. About 20 or 30 years ago, we had a lot of those same comments and issues. At one point we told people that the programs were there, like section 95, RRAP and different programs. However, we also told people that one of the conditions of doing this is that you have to agree to do something on your end.
We created a system where we do our part, you do your part. We created a relationship with the leadership and the homeowners. Basically, the deal was you do your part and we'll do our part in terms of providing housing. You do your part in terms of doing what you have to do to help in the ownership responsibilities of your unit. They didn't have ownership of the units; they didn't have ownership of the land. So we met, talked, discussed, argued — you name it — and got the majority of the community to agree to the process of how we would carry it out. Getting agreement and getting understanding of that and then formalizing it and implementing rules around it in terms of exactly how you're going to be treated and how you're going to be related to by the leadership of your community really made a big, fundamental difference because some of them believed that it wasn't their responsibility — it wasn't their unit; it wasn't their place.
It takes decades to get to that point or to implement that systematically, but continue working with the homeowners in your community directly to implement the quid pro quo in terms of, yes, we'll do our part, but you have your part to do. Getting that understanding and then educating them about it really did make a big difference.
At the beginning — and I can tell you because I was there doing it — it was very acrimonious from the home ownership side and the leadership side. However, we worked with the entire community and came up with a workable approach that still exists today, basically.
The Deputy Chair: Could you give us some examples to explain that? You say you have an agreement with the people who live in the homes. For example, let's say my home needed some drywall repair and maybe painting. There's no Home Depot next door. In Membertou there probably is, but farther north you don't have one just down the street. What sort of provisions do you have to provide the materials or a local handyman to help you?
Mr. Paul: We've engaged a couple of people. We operate similar to the principles around low-rent housing. We have one or two people who do basic maintenance. They know enough to do basic stuff for elders and people in need, but for complicated stuff you have to get somebody else. In those cases, the individual usually writes to the housing manager. Now they tell them what's required by email, Facebook or phone call. In a lot of cases, the community provides the stuff and it's up to the homeowner to do the work.
Unless we have time available for the maintenance guy, if you're ill, disabled, elderly or not able to do it, we usually get somebody to do it. In some cases, people just do it themselves.
Senator Raine: You mentioned in your comments about the need for enforceable housing policy in Atlantic First Nations that would allow each First Nation to administer and streamline housing work.
Mr. Paul: What we did in the community was replicated and applied in multiple communities. The biggest issue is getting buy-in from the community.
Senator Raine: In Membertou, you did that. It took you a long time and you had to work at it. Are you using the example of Membertou to show other First Nations communities what can be done?
Mr. Paul: Yes, and other communities are doing the same thing. Some have created their own housing policies and have implemented rules; but it takes time. That's the critical part. There are two pieces to the equation: One is time and the other is documenting exactly what you're doing and fully engaging the leadership with the communities and the homeowners. You need both parties to agree with what you're going to do. Probably the greatest challenge is getting somebody to agree to something that may or may not be okay with them.
In terms of allocating units or providing a unit to an individual, we have an allocation application process plus we have a letter that details the terms and conditions around receiving a unit. It's all in writing and not left to chance that you don't know what your obligations are.
Work with people and be reasonable with people about what those obligations are and they understand that there aren't unlimited financial resources to do whatever. That doesn't exist anywhere. You have to temper responsibilities with financial reality.
Senator Raine: This work is properly done at the community level between the council, the housing department and the tenants.
Mr. Paul: Right.
Senator Raine: In most communities, is there an option for people to get a piece of land and build their own home if they have the resources?
Mr. Paul: That's done in my community. I'm aware that they allocated an area to a person, gave them water and sewer access, and the person used his own money to build a house.
Senator Raine: Are people using modular and mobile homes as well?
Mr. Paul: They use them in a lot of communities. Over the years, we've encouraged our own tradespeople to build homes because it creates employment in our community.
The big challenge, as I mentioned earlier, is that other people want to hire these qualified tradesmen and move somewhere else; then we'll have no supply to build the houses. There's the Catch-22. You have a limited budget to offer reasonable pay, but then somebody offers double — 14 days in and 14 out, or whatever the scenario is.
It's a difficult, competitive advantage. I think we're managing as best we can to set reasonable compensation for the basic core trades, like carpentry and plumbing, in home building at reasonable rates. It's not slave labour or minimum wage but reasonable compensation for what's being done.
Senator Raine: Are you finding that more and more young people look for careers in the trades with this experience of being able to go away, work, come back and still live in the community?
Mr. Paul: Yes, more and more are doing that. It's interesting though, because if they don't figure out how to survive at the other end after the first cycle, they'll be back. If they go out there for 21/7 and something happens, the odds of them going back out — they have to do at least five or six cycles to get in the rhythm of what's required to do it for 5 or 10 or 15 years. It becomes part of your life cycle, basically.
I can attest to the flights going back to Sydney from Toronto every week and all those people that fly back from Fort McMurray to Sydney every week or every day.
Senator Raine: It's interesting because when you think about it in the long term, it's a good opportunity for your communities because people are getting those skills. Eventually, they'll have those skills at the community level, although in the ideal world they could stay at home and do that. If the economy isn't there, you don't want to hold people back.
Mr. Paul: The only thing in terms of the communities is that there's a limit on the level of construction. In non-Native communities or outside communities, they're mostly developing at a subdivision project level in terms of construction. A community might build two, three, five or ten houses at a time, which is enough work for, say, 15 people, maybe.
The scale is a little smaller so you have to balance that with the supply of labour you have. You don't want to get rid of them all and then be stuck paying double. That's the Catch-22, and it's a big challenge. Develop the right strategies around young people, support those looking for opportunities and get them the skills for five years; and then get them to do something else.
If you're able to provide a housing unit for those people five or ten years after they've established themselves with a steady income and lifestyle, then you'll see the other possibilities open up for them.
Senator Moore: Thank you, Mr. Paul, for coming to see us again. I have a couple of questions. Where is the network housed? Where is it located?
Mr. Paul: We basically work out of our own offices or our own organization. We work with the First Nations and the other tribal organizations in the region, as well as every federal agency in Atlantic Canada.
Senator Moore: You personally are at Membertou.
Mr. Paul: Yes.
Senator Moore: You're executive director of the APC, right?
Mr. Paul: Membertou is one community that's a member of APC.
Senator Moore: Exactly. Day to day, are you also the secretary for the network?
Mr. Paul: I have another staff person that specifically deals with the network.
Senator Moore: Who would ask the network for advice, a chief or a housing manager from a First Nation?
Mr. Paul: We've created a comprehensive network of people. Basically, we've created a network of the band managers in the communities, who are the CEOs or the band managers of the communities, the directors of housing in the communities, including some of the tradespeople in the communities we're also talking to as well. Then we also deal with the whole list of federal players that are involved.
We also deal with the private sector as well, like the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick home builders associations, the other groups that are involved in this activity in our region.
Senator Moore: Who comes to the network looking for advice?
Mr. Paul: It's the community, primarily. It could be the chief. It could be the council. We'll go to talk to anybody, whether it's the chief, council, the staff, the entire community; it doesn't matter. We're open to talking to anybody about these issues.
Senator Moore: The network has been in existence since 2007. How many requests have you had since then?
Mr. Paul: I'd say almost every month we have something that we have to deal with, or every week there's something we provide information or advice to communities on. We're a resource of experts to the communities, including our staff and the other community experts, to help support each and every community across our membership of APC. One community can help another community, or one organization can help a couple of communities.
We have done it that way to empower both the organizations and the communities to help each other. That's why we created it as a network, more as a collaborative approach, to allow people to exchange information, mutually support each other and mutually help each other.
Senator Moore: Among the people you mentioned as being members of the network, do they have the qualifications to give the advice sought, or have you ever had to go outside of these people to get advice?
Mr. Paul: We do go outside of our people. We call upon resources of Aboriginal Affairs. We call upon the resources of CMHC, and we call upon the resources of the home builders and so on.
I'm of the view, ask whoever you need. If we can help position those resources to support and promote activities and actions at the community level, what's the problem with that? If it's supportive and it's based on an ask or a request, I don't see a problem with that, because you're trying to support them.
Senator Moore: I want to ask you a little bit about the CMHC requirement that First Nations meet the new National Building Code program under section 95.
We heard, I'd say, conflicting evidence. Some people said that the First Nations were told two years ago that this was coming. Others appeared before us and looked at each other like they just heard of it that day that they were before us and we asked questions.
I'm wondering about that and the whole matter of the Native Inspection Services Initiative inspectors. I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to have interested men or women on-reserve, First Nations people, to be qualified and to provide that service, whether in their own communities or others across the country.
What can you tell us about that? When did you learn about this, Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul: I saw a letter that was sent to the communities about a month ago.
Senator Moore: Was that the first time you heard of it?
Mr. Paul: That's the first time I've ever heard of it.
Let me go back a little bit on that to explain. Even as part of the section 95 program, or the RRAP program of CMHC, fundamentally as part of that work, when you're doing the specifications for work or even a building, most people use the standard of the building code as the guide to what it is you're trying to do.
The difference is the enforcement of it through CMHC was related to the release of the financial resources related to the inspection, not necessarily the actual compliance. They did the inspection to ensure progress was achieved and money was released, not necessarily compliance. That was a flaw that was created a long time ago, because it related to potential liability of the inspectors themselves related to compliance. How could they actually enforce that as inspectors?
Senator Moore: I'm not sure I understood the last part. Can I ask you to run through that again? Just run through that last part again.
Mr. Paul: I understand it because I've been around a long time in terms of what is going on with CMHC. The program requires an inspection for release of money for payment. It doesn't require it for compliance with the National Building Code per se.
The issue is that if these inspectors were doing inspections specifically for compliance, somebody would have to take on the legal liability of those inspectors, which would have been CMHC in that case. So they didn't want to take on that liability. They wanted to make sure that things were done to progress but not necessarily related to the legal liability.
Senator Moore: So done to a progress stage but not to the building code?
Mr. Paul: Right. It could be. It was a weird set-up when they set it up first. When they first created it, it was kind of strange.
I know all it would require is for those NISI inspectors to take specific training to allow them to do compliance. That's what would be required. I didn't know why nobody thought to actually do that, because to me that made more sense.
Senator Moore: That should have been done in advance of the implementation of this new requirement. Somebody should have been looking down the road, I think.
The Deputy Chair: If I could just ask a supplementary question, you were talking about the liability associated with the inspection. I'm wondering if you have any suggestions or recommendations as to how that might be addressed.
Mr. Paul: I believe and agree that most people who build houses agree that the code is the standard in any community. In the non-Native communities, you have to hire an inspector or you're not going to get the mortgage. That's kind of how it works. In our scenario, we can get a mortgage without that.
I would say it has to be linked back to the mortgage at some point, because right now, they're not. They're disconnected. They're not connected together. At some point, the inspections have to be related to the mortgage somehow.
Senator Tannas: We had CMHC here, and I'm not sure that an inspection is required for mortgage purposes. It is the proof that you've completed the work.
Mr. Paul: Yes.
Senator Tannas: The problem is that the inspection piece is a municipal and provincial issue. As CMHC explained it to us when they were here, there's a jurisdictional problem that everybody is pussyfooting around. When, in fact, it doesn't exist within a First Nation, when they have not taken it up and said, "There is a building code here in this municipality, this First Nation, and we enforce it, by the way," then CMHC needs to fill that gap and not be shy about it. I think what they're doing with this February thing is starting to do that, because they've been watching this committee. And we've heard horror stories.
The problem is that it's a knee-jerk; it's happened too fast. There aren't any inspectors who can do it, and there's no leverage. We will create a situation, I can bet, soon — and I'm getting to a question here in a minute — where CMHC will get a report that says that this particular project doesn't meet building codes, and we'll have half-built houses all over the place, waiting for somebody to correct the problem. That will be the next step.
Would you want to comment on what we talked about here, this jurisdictional issue, and where you see First Nations in the continuum of developing that, especially now that we know we will have a problem?
Mr. Paul: I believe the communities in a lot of cases can take it on. I do believe that. I believe we can take it on. The issue is developing the right capacity and the right process to ensure it actually gets implemented, and all the stakeholders, whether it's the province, CMHC, or Aboriginal Affairs and the council, being onside with that, to actually do it and enforce it and do compliance of it.
I look at it from the perspective that I'm the homeowner at the other end of this scenario, and I'm in a community. I get a house from the community, and it's half built. I have no leverage to get it completed. At least this will give you some leverage to get it done.
I know this from dealing with I don't know how many families. All they want is the house done. They just want it done to a standard.
What I explain to almost everybody is that when we build houses, I explain how we use the National Building Code. The way I did it was I used it as part of the tendering process for allocating or getting the people to actually do the construction. When I gave them the contract to actually do the construction, I gave them the plans, the site plan, plus I also gave them a spec sheet that was written in such a way that would require it to be compliant with the National Building Code.
If you cover it in the tendering or contracting process, you'll get it done, because the way I set it out to the ones who were working for us is that I said, "Either you get it done this way, or you're not going to get paid." It's a very powerful incentive when you have the homeowner on your side, because the only goal of the homeowner is to get the unit complete so they can move in. That's the number one goal of the homeowner: "Get it done so I can move in." If it's a renovation: "Get it done so I can move back in," or whatever it is.
Using that as part of the leverage, I think, would be very beneficial.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Paul.
You referred in your presentation to the need for — you referred to it as a more transparent consultation process in regard to any new legislation.
I must say that in my time on this committee there hasn't been a First Nations bill that has come before us where we haven't heard comments of lack of consultation and so on. I find with the work that our committee is doing on this particular housing and infrastructure need, we want to come up with recommendations that have a chance of succeeding, so to understand the process we would have to move those through.
In terms of consultation, I'd appreciate any comments you might have about how consultation in regard to a housing strategy should take place with First Nation communities. A broad-based, all-encompassing policy that would cover all 633 First Nations communities across the country is no small task, so how does the federal government approach those consultations? Would the expectation be that discussion should take place with each of the 633 communities separately, or are there organizations that bring together First Nation bands, for example, the AFN or, in your case, the APC, and work through them to develop those policies? What are your comments on that? How should that consultation process take place?
Mr. Paul: I've been around quite a bit in terms of dealing with these issues around housing and this sort of stuff, and I really believe in a three- or four-pronged approach to consultation, especially on an important and critical issue like housing.
You have to actually talk to the people at the receiving end of this in the communities to understand it from their view of the world, and then you hear it from the leadership and the management view of the world. Then you go up to the organizations and up to the AFN.
I think you have to stage it and organize it that way but be clear about what you're asking, be clear on what it is that you're trying to get out of them. I believe, in a lot of our communities, communities themselves have a lot of positive and innovative ideas on what to do. We just have to figure out a way to get them, hook them in to help us actually do it.
Like I said, doing it at all those different levels and phases in a — but you tell people that you're going to do it that way, that you're going to engage at the viewer end. It's two ends of a telescope, basically. One is at one end, and one is at the other end from here.
I think there's great frustration on the part of homeowners or people who want to be homeowners in the community because of the lack or limit of financial resources to build new units. They're just frustrated, and they really want to hear or provide ideas in terms of how to be innovative in providing those solutions from their end. I think there are many innovative people and many innovative communities in this country that can provide that. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. If it was, things would be easy.
In our case, we had to work with our community in coming up with a logical strategy that they supported as well. It wasn't just me and the council or whatever. It included our elders, our youth, everybody who was in the community coming up with the solutions. They had to buy into it.
If you're building houses for 30, 40, 50 years, you have to think ahead to then. You can't just think about addressing the need now.
Senator Wallace: No. I think no one would disagree with that. I think that's quite logical. It's just that approaching this and trying to find broad-based policy solutions that can establish the basis to provide housing for 633 bands across the country is not easy.
Mr. Paul: I agree it's not an easy task. It's never been an easy task.
Senator Wallace: No, nor should it be. That's fine. But I can see, certainly with issues that are specific to a certain band or reserve, that local input. My thought was that, through the AFN and through organizations like yours, that's the job. You make that contact with each of your members. It would even seem to me it's more appropriate to do that, because you understand it. Then those issues are brought forward to the federal government to deal with the AFN and the APC. Not to say there's no contact below that. I'm not suggesting that at all. But just as a practical matter, I thought that was the way it was supposed to work, but it doesn't seem that it works that way with your organizations.
Mr. Paul: Housing is a very sensitive issue in communities. It's political, educational. Whatever issue you want to talk about, housing is connected — health, everything is connected to housing.
Senator Wallace: Wouldn't First Nations organizations be the ones capable of dealing with that and then approaching the federal government?
Mr. Paul: I agree. I think we have to challenge the way we've done this in the past. Like you said, I really believe maybe it's the time to look at more innovative approaches to attack it, either on a provincial or a regional basis, to come up with commonalities of solutions and commonalities of process, as well as partners, to actually find the solutions and then have the capacity to implement them.
Senator Wallace: One other question, if I could, chair.
Mr. Paul, you spoke about the current asset management strategies, that they're unsustainable, in part because there's a lack of enforceable housing policy among Atlantic First Nations. When you say that, would you and the APC be supportive of developing enforceable codes and strategies related to housing that would be similar to the approach taken with Bill S-8, the safe drinking water bill? In other words, use that as a template, as a success — and I thought you called it a success — and use that approach with housing standards and other housing strategies.
Mr. Paul: It is there to do it that way.
Senator Wallace: Would you support that?
Mr. Paul: I think I would have to look at it and to see what people are willing to do with it, and also talk to our leadership and our communities to see if that's possible. I think the biggest challenge is we've been dealing with these issues for so long that we're stuck. I think, like you said, the time has come basically where we have to think beyond the past and really come up with some new avenues to actually come up with some logical solutions to this issue.
Senator Wallace: Or to get to a point that, from the government's point of view, thinking you're bringing this forward, thinking that the changes proposed are generally onside, only at the end of the day to hit a brick wall and it falls apart. I think we all would agree that's unproductive.
Mr. Paul: Yes.
Senator Meredith: Mr. Paul, thank you again for your presentation. I always enjoy hearing your passion as you talk about the issues affecting your community.
You made reference, in a segue that my colleagues just raised with respect to Bill S-8, that another challenge facing Atlantic First Nations communities is the passing of legislation with no tools or financial or human resources to help adjust to new laws and regulations.
In your opinion, why do you feel that AANDC has not put the necessary funds in place to ensure compliance? We have always heard in presentations from AANDC to us that certain amounts are allocated for transitioning when a new piece of legislation is brought in, for ensuring there's smooth transition and so forth. Why, in your opinion, do you feel these resources are not in place to ensure a smooth transition?
Mr. Paul: The issue is that with the legislation that has come forward, the resourcing levels for communities has remained flat, at 1 per cent. You get a new piece of legislation — whatever it is, it doesn't matter — that creates new obligations, new workload for the band manager, legal staff, financial staff, whatever. That increases the cost to the community and the people in the community. Because there's limited to no growth in the global budget, you're stuck with it; it becomes your responsibility, whether you like it or not.
The matrimonial property act comes into effect this December. We're going around educating communities and advising they should develop their own practices and laws around it. But the challenge is that they have to do it within their existing financial resources, which creates challenges for them, because it's something added on to a list of other priorities, whether education, health, social or infrastructure; it doesn't matter. The demands on the budget continue to grow. As the populations continue to grow, the challenges become more and more, and communities have to make trade-offs, basically, on what they will or won't do, because the financial resources place limits on what you can do and what you can make a priority.
Senator Meredith: Going back to the code issue, one of my colleagues raised this with respect to what was referred to as a knee-jerk reaction from CMHC. You talk about the health of families and the fact that we've seen the reports of mould, which has been prevalent in the housing situation on First Nations properties.
Talk to us about why you think there has been such a slow reaction from them. We know there's been a problem. We know that individuals have gotten severely ill from mould and the improper inspection of these homes. Why is it that there's been a slow reaction to actually address this issue?
Mr. Paul: I don't know, but I do know that in terms of air quality and mould, there is no standard in terms of saying this quality becomes enforceable as a standard. That's part of the problem as well. I don't think that air quality is in the building code anywhere.
The issue is that there is a direct correlation between air quality and health conditions, especially things like asthma or other conditions, but proving the correlation is something else. What measurement or standard do you use on air quality to say something is wrong?
We've gone down that road of dealing with mould and air quality in communities where inspections were done, where mould was identified, and clearly it is a big challenge. The strange thing is that a simple thing like a tap being broken in a unit can, over time, create very damaging conditions. In a normal house, a dripping faucet would be fixed. But in a community, if there are 10 people there, the wear on the tap is more than normal, and the impact of a tap dripping creates deterioration in air quality over years. The amount that it does grow in a unit is amazing. I've seen it in houses where it has taken two to three months, but just a drip of a tap can cause such mega-problems in a unit. I always say it's amazing what the power of water will do in a unit. In a normal scenario, you would say, "Yes, I'm just going to fix it," and sometimes you don't see it as a big problem. It is a big problem. It will grow into a big problem.
It really goes back to the cornerstone of what I was saying about the need for ongoing education in ownership, and just basic maintenance management in a unit. I always said teach the kids first and the parents will come onside. If the kids bug you about everything in the house, guess what? You end up doing it because they're bugging you all the time. "The teacher said, 'You've got to do this stuff."' "My Home is My Wigwam" helped us work with very young kids to go home and bug the parents. Education like that really creates those changes that will help improve practices in a house over time.
Senator Meredith: That is a great segue into my last question.
This tool kit is a tremendous opportunity to educate youth on the importance of home maintenance and the potential impacts on health. Also, further on in your presentation you spoke about the fact that the information from CMHC was not culturally sensitive. Why is it that there was no full consultation to ensure you're not just doing it top-down but you're doing it grassroots, this is what we've identified as First Nations people, this is what we want to see taught to our children?
Mr. Paul: The Western version of it was "My Home is My Teepee." We don't have teepees in Atlantic Canada. We have wigwams. So we changed it to "My Home is My Wigwam" and related it to our conditions and our unique history in Atlantic Canada, with the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu, and we integrated terminology from our language into the tool kit, where teachers could use it in whatever grade level to instill the importance of practices in the household that are standards, just automatic standards.
As I mentioned earlier, the simple dripping of a tap sounds like not a big issue, but it does become a big issue when you leave it for weeks or months or whatever on end. Teaching kids to bug the parents about those things really does help. When a primary child is asking you, "Dad, Mom, how come you haven't fixed that? What's the problem here?" and they keep asking you every day, you get the point and figure out that you have to do something to fix it.
Senator Meredith: I have one last question on the point of kids bugging their parents about getting things done. What has your organization done to engage youth around financial literacy as well as pertaining to the national housing fund?
Mr. Paul: We've done a lot of interesting work on literacy. I've done some stuff globally on financial literacy with the leadership and with communities.
In terms of communities, it's something that needs to be built into the curriculum, because people don't have the same financial understanding if you live in a community versus not. The reality of it is that financial literacy is not the opposite of being illiterate. I think that people need to understand that financial literacy is about giving you more information and more empowerment about creating control of your future, and understanding it more really helps you make those choices that you need to make. If you can teach that at kindergarten, I would agree wholeheartedly, because I think teaching it at the grades it is required to be taught, when teaching math and all those other things, is important when they grow up, when they move to their first apartment or their first luxury apartment somewhere, or even when they go work out West in some cases, because they have to know that out there, as it's thousands of miles away and they have to manage with the resources they have. Knowledge of financial literacy is critical in terms of dealing with it in the context of housing and home ownership.
The Deputy Chair: One last question: You were talking about training youth in the trades, and you were also talking about how a number of your skilled trades, your carpenters, plumbers, electricians are moving elsewhere because of the better job offers. Have you considered the option of linking the training to residency, a commitment to work on-reserve for a certain period of time in exchange for essentially a bursary? When I first went to university, there were a number of bursaries where you can go into medicine or social work or whatever, but you had to guarantee to the province that you would work in the province for three years after the completion of your studies.
Have you considered anything like that as an incentive for your newly trained people to stay home after their training?
Mr. Paul: Not really, but I think it is something that people are going to have to start considering, because you're investing financial resources and expecting an outcome. If you're using community financial resources, then we should expect you to contribute something back, if it is one year of your life as an apprentice or whatever.
One thing we have done in my own community is that we have a red seal program where we deliberately ensure that our community apprentices are part of the construction crew and the construction of all the units. To be a contractor in our community, you have to hire apprentices from our community as well. It's another neat little condition in the contract.
I agree; I think there need to be incentives. They don't have to be forever. You can't force them to be there forever. If we're going to invest in them, then we want them to invest in our community, at least for a little bit of time, in terms of making improvements in our community.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. On behalf of all the committee members, I would like to thank you for appearing before us today and for your testimony and your excellent answers to all the questions the senators have posed.
(The committee adjourned.)