THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Thank you all for your cooperation on that.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. My name is Joan Kingston, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am the chair of this committee.
I’d like to welcome our guests this morning, but first I’m going to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec, deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis from Saskatchewan.
Senator Wilson: Good morning. Duncan Wilson from British Columbia, and I’m the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Coyle: Welcome. Senator Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I would like to welcome everyone with us here today as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on March 11, 2026, we are pursuing our study of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.
For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome today, from the Assembly of First Nations, Chief Andrea Paul, Nova Scotia Regional Chief and Environment Portfolio; Curtis Scurr, Director, Environment Sector; and Graeme Reed, Strategic Advisor, Environment, Water and Justice Branch, who is with us virtually.
Thank you, and welcome. We’ll start with some opening remarks. Regional Chief Paul, if you would like to begin, you have about five minutes.
Andrea Paul, Chief, Nova Scotia Regional Chief and Environment Portfolio, Assembly of First Nations: Wela’lioq. [Indigenous language spoken]. Hi, everyone, and good morning. My name is Andrea Paul, and I’m from Pictou Landing First Nation, Nova Scotia. I’m also the Nova Scotia Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN. I’d like to acknowledge we’re here in the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Nation.
I thank the committee for the invitation to appear today.
It’s a shame that First Nations voices cannot be here to contribute to this important study. The committee must hear directly from First Nations rights holders, including by extending this study. The AFN works on the basis of directions from the First Nations-in-Assembly, which have provided clear direction that First Nations inherent rights, jurisdiction and knowledge systems are foundational to discussions on climate action and energy efficiency.
To prepare for this appearance, we have developed a technical submission outlining four recommendations on Bill S-4. Today, I would like to speak on three broad themes captured in our submission.
One, align collaboration with the minimum standards in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; two, empower First Nations to develop their own energy efficiency frameworks and standards; and three, embed free, prior and informed consent of First Nations in any proposed regulatory sandboxes.
On ensuring that collaboration is United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act compliant, Bill S-4 includes fostering collaboration with Indigenous Peoples as one of the bill’s purposes. Not only is this purpose undefined but First Nations are also seeing a worrying trend as being structurally excluded from legislative development. Section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDA, obligates the Government of Canada to take all measures to align federal laws and policies with the UN declaration, including their consultation, cooperation, extending into interpretation and implementation. First Nations cannot continue to be sidelined from conversations that may affect their rights and interests.
Legislative development must take all necessary measures to align with the UN declaration, which has not been done in this circumstance.
We need to create space for First Nations-led energy efficiency standards and frameworks. Collaboration with Indigenous Peoples must also create direct space for First Nations-led approaches to energy efficiency. In 2023, the First Nations-in-Assembly endorsed the AFN National Climate Strategy and its seven priority areas for action, including closing the natural and built infrastructure gap. The AFN National Climate Strategy and the Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030 report outlined strategies to empower First Nations climate leadership and specific activities to improve First Nations energy efficiency.
While Bill S-4’s purpose to foster collaboration is not defined, one of the ways to accomplish this would be to ensure it supports First Nations in developing and implementing self-determined strategies to reduce emissions, along with increased investments to support First Nations infrastructure.
The Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030 report identified $12.7 billion in capital funding required to improve energy efficiency for First Nations housing, vehicles and fleet infrastructure and light-duty vehicles by 2030.
These documents combined demonstrate that First Nations are ready to take action in this regard. To do so, adequate, stable and long-term resources are required to both improve self-determined energy efficiency and close the infrastructure gap for First Nations.
Regarding embedding free, prior and informed consent in the proposed regulatory framework, this government has used regulatory sandboxes to reduce red tape, providing new authorities to ministers to use exemptions to accelerate new technological development. Exemptions under the new regulatory sandboxes introduced in Bill S-4 are a deep concern for First Nations and risk undermining First Nations inherent and treaty-protected rights.
Creating regulatory sandboxes on the grounds of improving efficiency for new emerging technologies or other products could be tested without the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations as well as the environmental safeguards in place to protect them. At the very least, exemptions must be aligned with the UN declaration, consideration of First Nations knowledge systems and participation of First Nations from start to finish.
The recommendations I have summarized today are elaborated in the AFN’s technical submission to this committee.
First Nations inherent rights, jurisdiction and knowledge systems are central to any discussion on climate action and energy efficiency. First Nations stand ready to collaborate directly with the Government of Canada.
Wela’lioq. Thank you. I would welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We can now begin questions with senators.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Regional Chief Paul. I am thrilled to have you here. As you know, your predecessor is one of our fellow senators, Senator Prosper.
This has been very important testimony that you’ve given. We’re aware of the purpose that you mentioned. One of the purposes stated in the bill is to foster collaboration with Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and I was curious how that has happened.
My first question really is: What has been, if any, the engagement with First Nations on this bill?
Graeme Reed, Strategic Advisor, Environment, Water and Justice Branch, Assembly of First Nations: Chi-meegwetch for the opportunity to contribute, and apologies for joining at a distance.
To our knowledge, there hasn’t been any involvement of First Nations in the introduction and development of this bill. That isn’t to say that there have not been longer-term conversations about energy efficiency and First Nations priorities, but in this specific instance, we’re not aware of any process of collaboration in the introduction of this specific bill.
Senator Coyle: I just wanted to get that baseline information. That was the assumption from the testimony, but I wanted to double-check on that. I know the main purpose of this bill aligns with your own strategy; you’re not questioning that. What I’m hearing is more about the issues of input and investment. Am I correct that one of the two main points that we’re hearing here is input now at this stage of the bill’s consideration? Well, you would have hoped to have had it earlier in the development of the bill, but now as we’re considering it, you are here, yet that needs to be greater, not just with the AFN but also with other First Nations that you represent. And then am I correct that the other main point is the investment?
On the investment side, we’ve heard some mention of concerns about energy poverty and how this is meant to bring the overall standard of efficiency across Canada in all communities, but we know that sometimes new efficient technologies cost money and require upfront investment, so there have been concerns expressed by certain people about some people being left out and left behind, as well as concerns about already existing energy poverty being further deepened and people not being captured by the essence of what this could bring to Canada.
Could you speak about this in relation to energy poverty, where energy poverty currently is in Indigenous communities and whether you think this bill could help or not? If it doesn’t help in the current circumstances, what could make it something that could be embraced and benefit Indigenous communities?
Ms. Paul: Thank you, senator, for the question. I was Chief for my community for 12 years. One of the initiatives that we take on is housing, specifically the issues that communities face with housing infrastructure, and we also carry the cost of appliances.
It’s difficult when things are changing and we’re not a part of it, yet we are left to pick up the costs on our very limited budgets. I’ll say it right now: The housing budgets for our communities are the lowest budgets, yet we have the highest needs in our communities with regard to needing new housing and also maintaining housing. Sometimes our houses are poorly built based on who comes in to build them, and sometimes our appliances are not to standard or we pay too much. One thing we noticed was the changeover of appliances — washers and dryers are an example — and the cost that the band incurs on that. So that is an issue, if we were to look at this: the consideration of what that data looks like for our First Nations for band-owned units and those that are supporting band-owned units and what that cost looks like overall.
It’s important to note — and I just brought this up yesterday in conversation — the use of energy-efficient products. When we bring these into the home, people don’t understand what that means and how to operate these products. I’ll give a fine example.
A repair guy taught me about energy-efficient washers. My washer was breaking down, and he told me that people are using way too much liquid detergent in their washers, which is creating an issue with these high-efficiency washers. We keep bringing a repair guy in to fix these, yet no one is having the conversation about how little detergent you’re supposed to use in it. Even the supplier — I’m not going to name because we know who they are that sell detergent — had said, “Do you remember when they used to be in these little cups when they first came out? Now they’re in big cups, and they have 1, 2, 3, 4 and everyone goes to 4 because it’s a full load. That’s way too much. These products only use a little bit of water and are trying to wash out all this soap. Imagine what that’s doing to your appliance.” I thought, “Oh, my gosh.” As Chief, I was telling people, “You have to stop using so much detergent.” For me, financially, the repair guy and the changeover of systems were getting costly. I’m just one small community. Think of all the other communities that are going through this and how we can collaborate and figure all this out, and it’s expensive. People kept asking, “Can you bring back the old-school stuff?” but everything now is energy efficient. Everything is being sold differently.
These are issues that our First Nations face. I’m just speaking about it with my Chief lens, given that bit of experience that I had, and you guys probably all have washers and dryers and you know, so I try to do my part in educating others about it.
I don’t know if that is a good example, but I wanted to share a real example from when I was the Chief. I’m sure my colleagues would have more fulsome responses to that question.
Mr. Reed: Regional Chief, I appreciate that example, and I appreciate the question. Like you said, the point we’re raising is procedural in nature, specifically how our First Nations are considered equally in the development of legislation, and that’s partly the UNDA considerations that we’re bringing. And then specifically on the energy efficiency element, as Regional Chief shared, what we’re saying is it’s a great opportunity for First Nations, but it’s intertwined with the need to close the infrastructure gap and support First Nations-led priorities.
While we are broadly interested in ensuring our appliances are more efficient, we also need to consider how our First Nations are being raised to equitable standards to broader Canadians, which is in itself an act of energy efficiency, while bringing the homes that Regional Chief mentioned into safe and livable conditions and addressing the gap of over 80,000 units across the country.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Ince: Thank you all for being here. Regional Chief Paul, it’s nice to see you again.
This is for anyone who may want to answer it: Do you see areas where the bill aligns with your community energy priorities and climate goals? And if not, where do you see further alignment or adjustments could be used?
Ms. Paul: I will refer that question to Graeme.
Mr. Reed: Thank you for that question, senator. I think I would come back to the point that Senator Coyle raised, which is to say that I think we acknowledge the specific elements of the proposed legislation. What we’re concerned about is, first, how it’s going to be implemented, especially on First Nations, and, second, how are we seeing the investments required for First Nations to take advantage of these opportunities? What we’re saying is missing is that broader conversation about the acceleration of direct resourcing to First Nations. There was a process called the Indigenous climate leadership agenda that actually empowered First Nations — 35-plus regional organizations across the country — to define what is required at a regional level and to describe what are the specific budgetary requirements to implement their climate priorities. That process kind of got lost in the transition after former Prime Minister Trudeau resigned and the election was called. We’re advocating for the reconsideration of that process and the investments that First Nations outlined.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Regional Chief Paul, for being here, and thank you very much for sharing your experience with us. It’s very clear your message is that you don’t see enough alignment of Bill S-4 with UNDA, which was passed here in the Senate.
I think that what you’re telling us is that you don’t want to be just beneficiaries, but rather you want to be drivers of your own innovation and you want to be energy independent and you want to see how investment in your communities will do. What I’m hearing is that we have a bill here, and it seems to be adapted to urban centres but misadapted to First Nations communities. These are two separate worlds. Perhaps you were suggesting an amendment or an observation, but we need to align it with UNDA. Will that be enough to make you drivers of innovation and your own managers of investment? Or is it not enough?
Ms. Paul: I see Curt is thinking. Do you want to respond, Graeme?
Mr. Reed: It’s a great question, and I think I’ll start by saying that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is, of course, an important signal of what was understood by First Nations as a level of equality and a level of operationalizing that nation-to-nation relationship. Ultimately, what we’re trying to bring by adding that consideration is it’s slowly eroding away from the approach that this government in particular is taking to the development of climate-related and nature-related solutions. For instance, the Climate Competitiveness Strategy and the Force of Nature strategy, both of which were important signals of where this government is going, were done without the input and contribution of First Nations, despite having nearly a decade of conversation.
As we think about how we specifically align this piece of legislation but also the broader climate and energy agenda of this government with the UN declaration, it is key to position First Nations in those leadership positions. At the AFN, through our National Climate Strategy, we’ve been making a very concerted effort around what is actually required. How do we approach that holistically, and in this specific context, how do we understand energy efficiency as intertwined with all the other infrastructure requirements? As the Regional Chief shared, broader capacity and awareness building are required to support First Nations in actually seizing and using these technologies.
Ms. Paul: Thank you for that, Graeme. The other piece I would include is the funding for capacity. I think that’s really important for our communities in order to have those meaningful consultation and co-development opportunities. A lot of our communities are rural communities, and they don’t have the capacity dollars or even the personnel to support. That is a gap that is required in co-development. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Chief Paul and your team.
One of the purposes of Bill S-4 is to foster collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. You mentioned that there was no consultation process. In the implementation of Bill S-4, what should the expression “foster collaboration with Indigenous Peoples” actually mean?
[English]
Ms. Paul: Sorry. I missed part of the question.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Bill S-4 specifically amends the purpose of the act and explicitly adds that Bill S-4 seeks to foster collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. You mentioned that there was no consultation when Bill S-4 was being drafted. In the implementation of Bill S-4, what does the expression “foster collaboration with Indigenous Peoples” actually mean?
[English]
Curtis Scurr, Director, Environment Sector, Assembly of First Nations: Picking up on Graeme’s point previously, when we think about what meaningful collaboration looks like, the expectation is that we’re starting from meaningful co‑development — beginning to end. Oftentimes what we see, particularly when it’s regulatory development, is we have assurances that there will be that collaboration and that co‑development from the beginning, but we often run into shortcomings there.
Broadly speaking — and we’ll point to the technical submission, of course, for further elaboration — we are expecting our participation from the beginning of development through to implementation, meaningfully speaking. That is the standard and baseline expectation that is set through UNDA and UNDRIP. We’re looking for all necessary pathways, and that includes co-development, co-development pathways, funding to support such things and substantive and sustained funding to be able to do that. It’s the following: One, not only to understand the process but, two, to also be involved in the process and, three, to implement. So if we’re looking at a fulsome and wholesome perspective like the holistic perspective that Graeme referenced, that would be the expectation. Graeme, is there anything further you’d like to add?
Mr. Reed: I appreciate that point. The only point I would add to what Curtis shared is one of the issues that we’re seeing — and it’s why the Regional Chief highlighted this in her opening remarks — is the usage of these regulatory sandboxes to spur innovation. I think the question that we’re asking is: What is the specific involvement of First Nations in actually identifying what is an acceptable regulatory sandbox to play within? Even if you look at the specific policy on regulatory sandboxing, there’s only one specific reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, but nothing says: What are the implications of that alignment, and how are First Nations involved in that? Not only are we concerned specifically about how this is discussed but also the broader point about how we are increasing that ministerial discretion without the requisite involvement of First Nations, as Curtis and the Regional Chief described.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I liked your example about the washing machine. We’ve clearly understood that, in isolated Indigenous and remote communities, there are problems with access to a connected energy system; these communities are therefore isolated, and the price of energy is high. In its implementation, how should Bill S-4 take into account the conditions of remote Indigenous communities?
[English]
Mr. Reed: Again, I appreciate that question.
The AFN has a pretty strong mandate on ending reliance on diesel. As you have described, in the context of rural and remote areas, the reliance on diesel is still substantial. While energy efficiency may contribute to reducing the amount of diesel that is used, it doesn’t necessarily address the aspirations of First Nations to get off diesel entirely.
Previously, there were investments through the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities program. That was important, but it wasn’t necessarily sufficient to support what was essentially the mainstreaming and implementation of clean energy projects across rural and remote areas. Our encouragement would be to ask again: How do we see these things holistically? How do we make sure that while this is intended to address the demand side, equally important remains the supply side and ensuring we can get First Nations off diesel as a key element and priority of ours?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wilson: I thought I would wait to go last.
I just wanted to make a comment. I have a question for you, Regional Chief, and probably also for Mr. Reed.
The comment I wanted to make is this: Some of the specific language around UNDRIP and Indigenous rights is actually now, I think, better covered by overarching government legislation, particularly two things. First is the Interpretation Act which, in 2024, was amended specifically to add a non-derogation and non-abrogation clause that requires all federal laws, including this one, to be interpreted to uphold and not diminish Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act. Second, in Bill C-15, UNDRIP legislation was added, including to require all federal laws to be interpreted as consistent with UNDRIP. That’s a more recent change, so we will have to see how that gets interpreted.
But I wanted to assure you that it is not this bill on its own that is subject to those things. That is just a point I wanted to make.
As I’m giving feedback to the department about what they can do better in terms of engagement and consultation with First Nations on something like this, I would appreciate your advice because we are dealing, in this case, with a very technical bill. We heard from industry and some environmental activists that they were very satisfied with the level of engagement. It sounds like that didn’t happen to the same extent with Indigenous communities. I would like your advice in terms of what we can say to the department that would be a good way for them to approach that in the future.
Mr. Reed: If I can start, Regional Chief, because I have to run relatively soon, unfortunately.
Again, I appreciate that point and that clarification, senator. Like you have described, there are legislative tools and steps forward to fulfilling the government’s obligations to a piece of legislation like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. What we are not seeing is how that is done in practice nor the process of conducting those sorts of alignments or exercises in legislative exploration in partnership with First Nations. Either we are told that a piece of legislation aligns with the UN declaration or it is not mentioned at all.
Our point here is this: How do we breathe the full life of what is required to ensure that section 5 of UNDA is implemented appropriately?
The second question on engagement and consultation is an important one. Thankfully, it is one we have been working on quite actively for the last decade. At least from a First Nations perspective, we have developed meaningful best practices for federal relationships with First Nations on climate policy and programs. We have worked actively to mainstream that within pieces of federal work, including decision-making guidance that is intended to inform officials.
The challenge that I think officials are facing is that they are given very limited time windows and limited scope to engage directly with First Nations. What we are trying to say is it is about ensuring those officials — especially given that central agencies are playing an enhanced role in the development of policy and legislative development — empower those line departments to support the decade of relationships that have been developed for First Nations, specifically on these areas.
I think, unfortunately, I will have to run now. Chi-meegwetch for all of this. I really want to lift up the Regional Chief and Curtis.
Senator Coyle: The question I was going to ask came out in subsequent questions.
I want to go back to the fundamentals here. I’m not hearing concerns so much about the substance of the bill, which is important for us to know. At the same time, we are hearing mostly concerns, as I said in my last question, about input: early, throughout, et cetera. I appreciate Senator Youance’s question about what that looks like and the concerns around investment.
The purpose of this bill is to bring energy efficiency to as many people in Canada as possible and to help our whole country — everyone in this country — move along with the energy transition. Also, when you have a more efficient appliance or other such things, you should actually be saving money. It is an affordability issue.
I will go back to my original line of questioning, and maybe this is adjacent to this bill, but we can mention things that are adjacent to the bill itself. Somebody mentioned the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities program. I know Nova Scotia has the Mi’kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project. Ontario has the Remote First Nations Energy-Efficiency Program. All these things that are out there — and I don’t know the status of them — could perhaps be channelled to support the benefits in First Nations communities and the ability to embrace the opportunities for better energy efficiency, which should bring better affordability and the transition we want to see.
I guess what I’m asking here is a more general question.
Given that you don’t necessarily have serious problems with the essence of this bill, what would be your main recommendation in terms of guidance to the government to accompany the support for this bill? What should be done to make sure that First Nations are able to take advantage of the benefits that this is meant to bring to Canadians?
Mr. Scurr: Thank you, senator. Agreed, we are not taking issue at all with the substance of the bill. It is more to do with process, procedurally and otherwise.
Looking at moving legislation forward with the broad ministerial powers we have already talked about, superseding regulatory frameworks, it’s obvious and there is no argument here that First Nations will benefit from more energy-efficient technologies. That is not the concern at all. It is really the processes embedded in legislation that do not have us involved and that are not funded to support that involvement, specifically the awareness, the education and the involvement in the implementation. Regarding all of the pieces that you had referenced in your intervention, we would support those. The idea here is sort of an all-hands-on-deck approach to ensuring that First Nations can be meaningfully involved in these processes — meaningfully and substantively resourced to be involved in these processes — and to see real benefit on the ground in community to address many of the issues that Regional Chief Paul has flagged previously. Broadly speaking — it was a broad question — I would agree.
Ms. Paul: I wanted to add to it, just with the lens I have as a Chief. When the government creates change, our communities don’t catch up as quick, and that is an issue. I don’t know how we support our organizations to support the community so that they understand why these things are happening.
You mentioned the Mi’kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project in Nova Scotia. As Chief, my Elders had a really hard time with that. They didn’t understand it. They asked, “Why are these people coming into my home?” We are being asked to move with this. For some of the issues, if I’m talking real, we have to consider who is on the receiving end of the changes, and in communities, language could be an issue. When these great things happen to people in the community, these great things may not be so great to them because they don’t understand. They don’t understand why people are coming in and putting these things around pipes and changing all their light bulbs and what this means, such as blowing this stuff to see what this blower test is.
It was really a learning opportunity for us as leadership, but we are not even given that information. We are trying to support, and it trickles down. Still today, people talk about, “Do you remember when they came and changed that?” Do you know what the Elders did? They switched all their light bulbs back. It was hard for them to figure out why we are doing these things.
Going back to the level of community is so important. Funding support and capacity support to organizations — even tribal organizations that support our communities with this work — are crucial so that they can connect with their housing people and then the housing people can get caught up, so then they can relay it to their leadership and to the people. There is a whole trickle-down effect. You have to remember that we live in small or sometimes big reserve systems that are really isolated from what government is doing.
It is usually a reactionary approach, and they are not sitting there saying, “Oh, Bill S-4. They are having a conversation about this.” I always bring it back to how we support the people who are supporting our people. That would be my response to that piece. No, we don’t see that there is anything wrong with this. We just want to see how we become a part of it and work together to support the people who will be impacted by this.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I’d like to ask a question, and I appreciate the way you addressed Senator Coyle’s question. My question is somewhat technical. If you don’t necessarily have the answer, you can send it to us by email or provide us with a document.
Bill S-4 expands the definition of dealer to include manufacturers, importers, sellers or lessors. It adds the concept of a commercial entity. Will this expanded definition and this addition result in Indigenous community groups becoming dealers or commercial entities? What impact would that have on how they operate? You mentioned consumer reactions to previous projects. Are you, as communities, now becoming dealers or commercial entities? What impact would that have?
[English]
Ms. Paul: I love that question. Absolutely, I think it will build a trusting relationship and capacity development, so I do see opportunities there, yes. They could probably answer in a much more technical aspect.
Mr. Scurr: We will take that back and provide a follow-up answer.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Scurr, if you could provide that by Monday, that would be great. Thank you.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments. I’m learning a lot here this morning. I think about the idea of isolation and so on. I really appreciated your remarks about the soap and the washing machine. I was actually a victim of that too once with my wife; yes, it wasn’t good.
I think of isolated areas. I think of a reserve in northern Saskatchewan receiving 100 washing machines with no owner’s manuals. They don’t come with owner’s manuals anymore. They tell people to look it up online, and the community doesn’t have internet or has spotty internet. A practical solution would be to recommend that these manufacturers make operating manuals available for people who sell the units to groups like a reserve that can order 50 owner’s manuals in the proper language so that it is a better education piece. Would that be helpful as a practical thing that we can put toward this bill?
Ms. Paul: That would be very helpful. I’m going back to the first point that you said about the washing. Someone needs to hold these companies accountable for that change. That is a huge change that happened with the amount of product you are now putting into the washing machine and the impact it has. Someone definitely needs to address that. That is a separate thing.
The ability to share that information is so important. We also have other systems in our homes that people don’t understand, like HVAC systems. Why do we have an HVAC system? People don’t know how to use them.
We have been seeing that question come up more and more. If your community is also dealing with an environmental issue, people will not use them because they feel that toxins are coming into their home. So they don’t want to turn on that filter system, and it creates more issues within their home. That is a whole separate conversation.
Housing supports and education are so important to be able to have that conversation with the people on the ground about their gaps and what they are seeing as supports that they would need in order to support the work they do to maintain these homes so that they are not running deficits because they are replacing systems. I know there is a non-political housing organization that is doing a lot of work; it’s Keeper of My Home. They have been doing a lot of work. It hasn’t really reached the grassroots level yet.
Housing is one of the biggest expenses for First Nations, so this conversation is really timely. How do we come together to support each other in that capacity and with what you said? You have to look it up on the internet, but the internet is not great.
The other piece I wanted to talk about, too, is the opportunity for other energy efficiency support programs. I know windmills were something that communities were taking part in. I often wondered how communities that are so far from the grid are supporting themselves and what that looks like. I was just telling the senator earlier about my visit to the Orkney Islands last year to visit the tidal energy project there and how much they use. It is very windy, so they have a lot of wind energy and now tidal energy. This is something Nova Scotia is looking at: the tidal energy project.
There will always be opposition, but the more we can share information is really important. It is not tidal energy that sits on the ocean floor; it actually floats. We got to hear from fishermen and all different people about why the Orkney Islands are so supportive of renewable energy and using the sources available to us. Tidal energy is so consistent: Tides go in and out.
I thought it was interesting. I wondered how we can use this to support other communities that are energy deficient and that rely on expensive ways to provide energy to their homes.
Anyway, those are just my random thoughts I wanted to share.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here this morning and for sharing your perspectives. When you talked about some of the things about washing machines and so on, I don’t think you are alone in that. There are many people, particularly those living in more rural and isolated areas, who feel the same way.
Senator Coyle: Or of a certain age.
The Chair: Or of a certain age. That is very true.
Ms. Paul: I just wanted to share that, because I like to keep things real. Thanks so much.
The Chair: Thank you again.
For our second panel, we’re pleased to welcome Tabitha Eneas, Chair of the First Nations Housing Professionals Association. Thank you for being here with us. I’ve seen you on the screen, off and on, so I know you’ve been listening in for the last hour. We’d like you to give us your opening remarks of about five minutes.
Tabitha Eneas, Chair, First Nations Housing Professionals Association: Hello, everybody. Thank you so much for having me today.
Honourable chair and committee members, I am here on behalf of the First Nations Housing Professionals Association to share a First Nations housing perspective on Bill S-4.
First Nations communities are managing multiple overlapping pressures: aging housing stock, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, rising energy costs, rising construction costs, limited funding and limited capacity, and this all creates energy poverty.
At the same time, communities are being asked to transition to higher energy efficiency standards. This creates tension. Long-term goals are being shaped and limited by our current realities. If we do not address what is happening now — what is happening today — we will not be able to reach the long-term outcomes this bill is trying to achieve.
First Nations people are not opposed to energy efficiency or environmental protection. We are stewards. Sustainability is not new to us. It is a responsibility we have always carried, and it’s one that nations across Turtle Island are reclaiming. But the most important element in this discussion today is not technology. It is people: community wellness — mental, physical, emotional and spiritual — and understanding and education about what energy efficiency is and what it means. It needs capacity and training as well as clear roles, responsibility and accountability. Without these things, even strong policies will not succeed.
Bill S-4 is a positive step. It strengthens standards. It supports innovation, and it does align with climate goals. However, it does not fully reflect the realities of our First Nations communities. There is a gap between policy intention and community readiness. If this gap is not addressed, standards will increase and expectations will rise, but our outcomes will not improve. In practical terms, higher standards without funding does not result in better housing. It results in fewer homes. Every increase in cost — materials, compliance and certification — means that we will have fewer homes built in our communities. We will have longer wait-lists. We will have worsening living conditions. This is not theoretical. It is the reality that our communities are managing today.
Geography and infrastructure matter. Many First Nations are located in areas with flood risk, erosion, limited infrastructure and high material and transportation costs. These conditions already increase the construction costs and complexity of the projects. Without flexibility, additional regulatory requirements risk making development unfeasible.
Bill S-4 focuses on products, systems and standards. It does not fully address the capacity to implement and maintain these new technologies. It does not address immediate housing conditions, our workforce readiness or our long-term operational funding.
There is also a need for stable housing systems. Housing departments in our communities require core funding, qualified staff and long-term planning abilities. Without this, implementation will not succeed.
If Bill S-4 moves forward, it must include pairing standards with long-term flexible funding: capital, retrofit and maintenance funding and predictable and accessible funding streams. We need investment into people: training and certification for First Nations housing professionals, workforce development at the community level and the capacity to install, operate and maintain systems and technologies.
We must address immediate housing needs. We need to repair homes with health and safety risks. We need to address overcrowding, and we need to ensure that current homes are functional before we apply higher standards.
We need to formalize First Nations co-development, move beyond engagement and include First Nations from the very beginning in decision making and regulatory design. We need to ensure accountability across all levels with clear roles for government, funders and First Nations. We need to focus on outcomes, not just compliance. We want flexibility for community contexts. We need to recognize the geographic, climate and infrastructure differences. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach.
Bill S-4 has the potential to support a stronger, more efficient future, but success will not come from standards alone. It will come from aligning policy with people. First Nations want environmental protections. We are stewards of these lands, but energy efficiency must not come at the cost of housing access. With the right supports, we can achieve both. Without them, we risk setting targets that communities are not resourced to meet.
Lim’limpt. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Eneas.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Ms. Eneas, for being with us and for actually positioning this in the bigger picture, which is important to take into consideration, both in terms of the broader housing situation — the current situation with housing — and also with people. I appreciate your perspective of how it’s important to align policy with people. That’s really good for us to hear.
You were making the point about the gap between the intention — as you agree that this looks like very good policy — and the community readiness, capacity and investment required. As I understand it, one of your main concerns on top of, of course, the issue is we wouldn’t be having this conversation, frankly, I think, if First Nations had co-development, and First Nations have clearly outlined what that entails. There are clear guidelines that have been agreed to on how that works as opposed to just strictly engagement, right? There is true co‑development, and if that had happened, we probably might not be having this conversation today. That’s a precursor. I’m just trying to play back some of what I heard here. We have heard now that First Nations are not satisfied with the level of engagement and the lack of co-development. You want to make sure that as this bill becomes law and is implemented, the drive toward efficiency, which you support, doesn’t come at the cost of housing access. This is a real concern because housing access is such an important driver, and it is so inadequately satisfied at this current moment. There’s a great big gap there, and you don’t want this to set that back even further than it is in terms of where resources are put.
Let’s say this bill is passed into law. We still have some work to do here, but what would you advise us in terms of either observations or in our report to really ensure that the intention of this bill, which you agree with, actually matches the implementation as it relates to First Nations communities? What are the concrete things that we should put in our report on this?
Ms. Eneas: Thank you so much for that question.
I’m going to be completely transparent. I’m not overly familiar with this process and what happens behind the scenes before a bill is brought forward to the Senate review and asking for witnesses to come forward. When we’re changing bills and even when we’re looking at the improvement and the intent behind it, regarding what we are discussing here today, we know that this can’t be covered under the bill requirements. That’s increasing funding and increasing capacity support. Those are different things that have to happen in a different area.
My recommendation, really, is about looking at those complexities. That can happen through that engagement piece because we would be discussing those.
We have already discussed that there are communities within Canada that are reliant on diesel power. We know that’s not clean energy. We also know that there are communities within Canada that now live outside of their homes because they have no power access within their communities.
I had met a member in Winnipeg, and their story was really disheartening. They were out of their home, living in a hotel with six members of their family, because they had no power. And they were going to be in that hotel for an undetermined amount of time. They had already been there for three months. That is energy poverty in Canada.
When we look at these types of bills, we have to engage with the other departments that they potentially may affect. We want to support this bill, but we understand that by supporting this bill and implementing this bill, we are now acknowledging that many of our communities and our members are left even further behind than they are now. We must look at what we can do today to help raise the equity of all of our communities as it relates to energy. This is that discussion of equality versus equity. We’re not an equitable country, and that would be something that I would recommend.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Ms. Eneas, for your testimony. It’s interesting because the two panels were very complementary. The first panel knew about the process, and they knew that the earlier consultation was missing and that bills are better because different stakeholders are consulted at the beginning so that we are not here discussing the parts that were forgotten. But you so incredibly discussed and detailed the reality of communities and how this bill can really be easily implemented in urban areas, but it is so difficult to implement it in rural areas and agricultural areas. From what you said and what the previous panel said, I understand now that you have more of an issue of energy supply, which is your priority, and then energy efficiency, but it’s like we’re doing things in reverse.
I want you to help us here. I have a clear picture now of the way the process works. Of course, eventually there will be benefits for everybody with this bill if it’s implemented, but I think that there are exceptions and special cases for rural areas, Indigenous Peoples and communities that need to be considered.
There are two ways that the Senate usually does this. We can ask for a letter from our minister saying that he’ll put in special care and he will repair these things later on, or there are amendments, but there are also observations that can explain and dictate that at the moment of implementation, the government should take care of these things.
I’m already saying that I’m going to write an observation for this. I don’t know if you know the process, but this is a Senate bill, so we cannot move budgets, and we cannot change the money, but we can recommend things to the government.
I’m not asking you for an answer right now, but if you can think and send to us by Monday some important points that you think we should ask, I would appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Ms. Eneas: Yes, thank you.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments and for your testimony.
I think part of what you’re finding yourself bumping up against is the concept of one size doesn’t fit all. Certainly, we see that in so many Native communities. I think that people just don’t realize that multiple housing units don’t work culturally on a reserve, for instance. You’re not going to put 30 people in one building and expect that everybody is going to be happy with it. When you go to reserves, quite often, the distance between homes is significant. It’s not uncommon to see reserves in my province where the homes are all on maybe one-acre or two-acre or five-acre lots spread over a wide area. That’s the way things are. That’s very expensive housing, and it’s very expensive to service all those things, but that’s the reality of these reserves. And that’s not going to change, nor should it change. That’s how those people expect to live and should have the right to live.
To Senator Galvez’s point, one of the observations should be about when it comes to Native housing and the concept of one size doesn’t fit all. I think with the Native housing situation, it really is an important distinction that we should see systemically. When we’re talking about funding for houses — as you say, deferred maintenance is a huge issue — I think that there needs to be recognition within our different bills and so on, and there needs to be extra money for Native housing. It’s not the same as urban living. Can I have your comments on that, please?
Ms. Eneas: Absolutely, thank you very much for those comments, senator, and I do appreciate the words that you had shared in terms of home development on-reserve.
One of the things that we always say is, you know, we do things until we know better. I think we can agree that throughout the creation of the reserve systems and finally being able to bring a type of market housing to reserves, we did things differently then. As we’re modernizing things, we are definitely recognizing the importance of ensuring density for not only capital costs but also for community safety and because our land cannot replenish itself. We have one of the highest rising populations within Canada, so we need to ensure that we’ve got long-term sustainability for housing development for our members for many generations to come.
I absolutely appreciate your thoughts in terms of funding for housing because we do absolutely need those things, and, again, this is closing the infrastructure gaps. This is closing the poverty gaps. This helps to enhance the transfer in care and authority so that First Nations communities are able to manage these big things on their own.
Right now, we’re at a point in time where we’re shifting from asking for permission to do things or for needing things within our homes and our communities to understanding what our roles and responsibilities are and shifting that into ensuring that we are taking care of those things.
All of those processes do require funding. I do appreciate your comments.
The Chair: I have a follow-up to that particular piece of the puzzle in terms of energy efficiency and how it is adjacent to the whole housing issue. You said in your remarks that there would be less housing built as a result of having other standards to comply with. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. Eneas: Yes.
The Chair: If you think about that, it’s the capital costs that are going to be increased in order to have increased energy efficiency and, therefore, savings in the future. I was wondering if you had any thoughts or if you have been talking with or about the Build Canada Homes initiative because they are looking at new homes that are affordable or deeply affordable. I’m wondering about your comments on that.
Ms. Eneas: Absolutely. With the First Nations Housing Professionals Association, we have had multiple conversations with the Better Homes initiative, and it is one we are still continuing to talk about, and we’re also still determining how that impacts and affects our communities long-term.
We definitely are aware of that program, and we’re working on how to support that and the implementation of that within our communities.
I also wanted to preface for those who may not be aware of why I am here representing the First Nations Housing Professionals Association and what this association might be. We are an association that educates and certifies people across Canada to be professional First Nations housing managers because we understand that we absolutely have to have educated people managing our multi-million dollar assets that we have within our communities.
My comment is in terms of as efficiency rises, we know that costs are going to rise as well. What is happening right now is: Based on the cost to even build a home — not including the energy efficiency pieces — it is unattainable for the majority of our people. I would actually even go as far as to say it’s even for a majority of people off-reserve. We know that Canada is in a housing crisis. When we’re looking at increasing requirements, we know those costs are going to increase, and that’s just another step forward where housing is unachievable for many of our people across Canada on-reserve and off-reserve.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: Thank you for your testimony today and your observations. I think we’ve heard loudly and clearly today that being able to deal with some of the upfront costs of infrastructure and new systems in communities is a challenge. The one observation I would make, though, is a core intent behind this is to reduce the life-cycle costs of operating equipment and also increase the durability of that equipment so that it needs to be replaced less frequently. Basically, as you said earlier in your testimony, you’re very familiar with sustainability and these approaches. I’m very confident that the costs will actually go down for consumers, and that will be particularly impactful for those who have a harder time making ends meet than for wealthy Canadians because the energy savings will be more material to those households.
It’s really just the initial capital cost, which we’ve also heard. Yes, sometimes when we get new high-efficiency equipment, initially it’s more expensive, but then as it becomes the norm, prices drop and it becomes just as accessible as the old equipment we used to use in terms of capital costs.
It sounds like you would be recommending to us that we make an observation to the government that it would be important to look at transition programs to incentivize the purchase of new equipment, much like rebate programs and things like that, which could be considered for some of those lower-income Canadians and vulnerable or remote communities.
Ms. Eneas: That would absolutely be a recommendation. I also believe that it’s not just the upfront cost that is going to be an issue. What I’m also trying to say is there’s also that implementation and management. We heard our previous witness state that people don’t know how to use these types of technologies; they’re uncertain or they just don’t know how to do that. It’s not only with funding incentives but even funding education around it as well. It’s about allowing opportunity and funding for communities to access where we can educate our people and educate Canadians on how they manage these technologies within their homes.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Ms. Eneas. You can see that we don’t necessarily have a lot of questions for you, because your statement was really clear about the lack of a co‑development mechanism, whereas Indigenous housing organizations will be the first to experience the impact of the new standard. You also talked about the concept of energy poverty, with the current housing situation in Indigenous communities.
You also talked about the gap between policy and community perception and capacity. What you’re telling us is really clear. I do have a quick question, though.
Do you think the regulatory sandboxes in Bill S-4 can be used by housing organizations to test new solutions, solutions tailored to the situation, to their reality, or do you think it will be reserved solely for large manufacturers or dealers?
[English]
Ms. Eneas: That is a really great question, and I do believe there are First Nations communities across Canada that would be able to take advantage of that, but I think that they are a very small percentage because they are more advanced than some of the other communities or the majority of our communities.
Again, we’re coming back to being able to understand what that regulatory is and what that innovation is and being able to bring that back into community. There is a very small percentage of us who would be able to access that because we are short-resourced.
We are resourced in our housing management programs. We are short-resourced in our economic development initiatives across our entire organizations and administrations. So we can only take advantage of these things if we are properly resourced. And if there are no proper resources, we are just doing our best to catch up.
The Chair: Are there any further questions from senators? Ms. Eneas, you have been very clear in both your presentation and your answers to our questions.
Ms. Eneas: Thank you so much.
The Chair: You are so welcome. And, of course, you are only one as opposed to three on the previous panel.
We thank you so much for being with us. We recognize that you have spent an hour and a half with us, with the first hour in the background. I think you gained some knowledge that is applicable to the work you do as well.
Thank you very much for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)