Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 11 - Evidence - October 19, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 7:03 p.m. to consider the Government response to the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, entitled On-Reserve Housing and Infrastructure: Recommendations for Change, tabled and adopted in the Senate on June 23, 2015, during the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Bonjour and good evening. 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 listening via the Web.
I would like to acknowledge, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Lillian Dyck, I'm from Saskatchewan, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I would now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair from Manitoba.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This evening we are very pleased to welcome Minister Carolyn Bennett and officials to discuss the government response we received on our First Nations housing study.
We have before us today, first, the minister, Honourable Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Welcome, minister. I believe this is the first time you've made a formal appearance here.
Along with the minister, we have witnesses from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. We have Diane Lafleur, Associate Deputy Minister; Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Sector; Lynda Clairmont, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector; Sheilagh Murphy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Economic Development; and David Smith, Acting Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Regional Operations Sector.
Thank you all for being here. Minister, the floor is yours, and we will have questions following your opening statement.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs: Thank you very much, madam chair, honourable senators. Merci, meegwetch, and thank you for inviting me this evening. I look forward to working with this committee, and I thank the members of the committee who came with us and witnessed the signing of the agreement in principle of the Ontario Algonquins as we sit here on Algonquin territory. I just wanted to say thank you for that.
I'm joined by the officials as you've introduced, but I particularly wanted to introduce our newish Associate Deputy Minister Diane Lafleur, who has come to us from the Department of Finance, which I think you'll find is a very good thing. She was on the receiving end of the proposals from our department and so is very good at helping us craft them so they'll be well-received from our department.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for your very complete report and for your enlightened recommendations.
[English]
I'm here to assure you that the work you did is a tremendous resource for me and for our department as we move forward in addressing the significant housing and infrastructure gaps on reserve. I very much enjoyed the breakfast we had together, where had had an informal conversation about this, and I learned a lot at that time, but it's great tonight to be here in person and discuss your report and the recommendations, and expand upon the government's written report.
As you know, it was tabled shortly after Budget 2016, but we've not been through the extensive Treasury Board process yet. Now that we've been able to move significant amounts of Budget 2016 infrastructure money through that process, tonight I can update you on the progress we've made in implementing a number of your recommendations and the ongoing engagements regarding some of the others.
The committee was very clear: making significant progress towards closing the unacceptable infrastructure gaps on reserve would require lifting the 2 per cent cap. We campaigned on lifting the 2 per cent cap, and I assure you tonight that we have delivered on that commitment. Within four years, the total funding for indigenous programs will be 22 per cent above the level of funding that would have been provided under the previous 2 per cent funding cap.
Budget 2016 also took into account the need for growth and cost drivers in critical areas such as education and child and family services, well in excess of 2 per cent. This will help end the unacceptable practice highlighted in your report of hundreds of millions of dollars of already inadequate infrastructure funding being reallocated to these other priorities, and I think most of you know that in opposition it was something that seriously irritated me as well.
We've also signed an MOU with the Assembly of First Nations to work in partnership to design a new fiscal relationship that moves forward to sufficient, predictable and sustained funding for First Nations communities.
You highlighted the need for building codes and standards and to better support the internal capacity within First Nations and organizations in terms of the administration of housing and infrastructure. As part of the National Housing Strategy, my department is working with the Assembly of First Nations, First Nations infrastructure experts and other key partners to develop recommendations to significantly reform on-reserve housing. This includes exploring the applicability and enforcement of building codes on reserve, identifying capacity gaps in indigenous communities, as well as enhancing band support funding for housing.
As you know, on November 1 to 3, the AFN is hosting a National Housing and Infrastructure Forum, and I understand that they are reaching out to you, madam chair, to invite the committee to come because of all of your good work — it will be in Winnipeg — and hoping that you will be able to participate in developing the new and innovative approaches to housing and infrastructure.
Regarding your recommendations that adequate funding was needed to support comprehensive community plans and for periods of longer than five years, I can tell you that we are supporting the development of between 90 and 100 comprehensive community plans in 2016-17, and this number is expected to increase in 2017-18.
A national community development and comprehensive committee planning working group comprised of representatives from First Nations and indigenous organizations, as well as our department, is also currently preparing a national community development strategy, which will include comprehensive community planning.
[Translation]
You drew our attention to the costs and the challenges inherent in construction in remote communities and the need to accurately account for those realities in the remoteness index, and we quite agree.
[English]
INAC, in consultation with Statistics Canada, is reviewing methods to better measure community remoteness to ensure approaches reflect the reality of living in these communities.
The department, in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations and with support from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is also currently engaging First Nations communities and other key partners on an effective, long-term approach to the on-reserve housing program as part of a broader national housing strategy that Minister Duclos is working on in terms of the whole of Canada.
This engagement includes issues specifically related to remote communities. We will support innovative, community-driven approaches. From the off-grid, tiny-house proposals to using new and improved building materials, we are looking at how to meet the unique needs of Northern and remote communities.
Your report called on the government to explore ways to facilitate First Nations' access to Indian moneys, and I'm pleased to report that on September 22, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, in partnership with INAC and First Nations organizations, convened the national round table to explore the ways to facilitate First Nations' access to Indian moneys, and we thank the chair and the senator for attending. We believe that the report and recommendations from that process will be forthcoming shortly.
I also want to highlight the work you did on creative financing options for community housing and infrastructure. We recognize that increased funding from my department alone will not close the sizeable infrastructure gap and that we need other creative solutions and a whole-of-government approach to deal with these challenges.
You recommended the government improve the efficiency of the Ministerial Loan Guarantees program and expand access of the program to First Nations governments, increase the guarantee authority limit and create a similar program for infrastructure other than housing.
In terms of the Ministerial Loan Guarantees program, it is currently accessible to band councils, tribal councils, authorized band housing authorities and band housing corporations. We are currently reviewing the program and considering current industry best practices to assist in driving the program changes.
We are also exploring the possibility of expanding the Ministerial Loan Guarantees program to include non-housing infrastructure on reserve, as you suggested.
Minister Sohi is working to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to provide low-cost financing, including loan guarantees, for new municipal infrastructure programs in our priority investment areas. My department is working with Infrastructure Canada regarding access for First Nation bands to capital through the proposed infrastructure bank.
We also continue to work with partners such as the First Nations Financial Management Board and the First Nations Finance Authority to support increased access to capital financing.
[Translation]
In your report, you make many other recommendations that, for lack of time, I will unfortunately be unable to address today.
[English]
I'm looking forward to discussing your recommendations in more detail during the questions and answer. Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We have a list of senators who wish to ask questions. We will start with the deputy chair, Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson: I would like to welcome the minister and her staff.
I know that you have a very challenging job and many important issues to address. I hope our committee can be a helpmate in addressing those challenges that we all face and that we're all concerned about. It's in that spirit that I want to genuinely welcome you here tonight and say — I believe colleagues of mine on the committee will agree — it doesn't always happen that a minister comes back to a committee to discuss a report and recommendations. We're lucky to get a timely response on paper. To me, it's really welcome that we can have a dialogue here, and I'm confident it will be constructive and respectful.
If I may, madam chair, I'd like to address the question of the 2 per cent cap, which we acknowledge the government committed to lifting and did lift, and this was overdue. I think we observed that that cap had been imposed and continued under several governments of several partisan stripes. It's a much bigger issue than partisan politics, and it's really great that it's been lifted.
We had very compelling testimony from a former deputy minister of your department, Scott Serson, who talked to us about how this cap was introduced with the imprimatur of Aboriginal leaders at a time when Canada was facing deficits in 1997 and 1998, on the understanding it would be temporary, and the same caps and even cuts were imposed on provinces. But then the provincial caps were lifted, and significant rates of growth were agreed upon by provinces and the government of the day in an effort to fill the gap that had been caused by the cuts. I believe the equalization program with provinces saw immediate increases of close to 9 per cent for 2 years and growth rates of 3.5 per cent or so for the next 10 years. We're dealing with a gap here that is much greater than the gap that the provinces faced during that shorter time in the late 1990s.
What I'd like to ask you about is this: Have you given some consideration to going forward and particularly putting fair and equitable escalators in place from here on? You mentioned the MOU with the Assembly of First Nations, so I'd like to maybe learn more about that and whether that important question of escalators would be discussed, please.
Ms. Bennett: Thank you so much, senator, and thank you for your understanding. I do hope that this is an ongoing dialogue and we'll come back as often as you want for any of the issues, we can check with one another as to how it's going. It looks like you will have a piece of legislation coming now, but I hope that we can work together on your future studies because of the excellent work that you always do here.
I think it's important for people to understand that, yes, that cap or escalator was put in place, a predictable escalator, at a time when all the other departments were being frozen. So this was a way of understanding that there was a growing population, a growing need, and that this particular department needed an escalator when all the other departments were being asked to stay within their current budget frame. As you know, we tried in the Kelowna Accord to inject some money that would have been effective and broken through the cap.
But no, there's no question that after all this time, we're way behind, and we believe that Budget 2016 has been a significant investment. As you say, it's unprecedented. Out of the $8.4 billion, $4.6 billion is over five years for on-reserve infrastructure, which put in $416.6 million over two years for our department and $137.7 for CMHC.
The housing was only a two-year commitment because we know we have to do some significant reforms. That's the work that will be done at the conference, trying to explore different ways of housing, different ways of financing, different ways of building, and much of that is based on your recommendation on community planning. How do we ensure that it's doable in terms of roads and fire hydrants, and how do you build community in a coherent way?
We know we have to do more, but I think that communities want to work with us in a real way and that we actually will have it in place, and the escalator that will be put in place will be clear in the supplementary estimates, senator, not only for housing but for the other programs that will be significantly more than the 2 per cent.
I was able to attend the first meeting at the AFN on the new fiscal arrangement and the new fiscal relationship after we signed the MOU in July. It's totally open in terms of a conversation. We've just heard so clearly that people wanted predictable, sufficient, adequate funding. Year to year doesn't work, not knowing what you're going to get. This new fiscal arrangement is much the same as we have with self-governing nations. They know what they will get and are able to use the money wisely and determine what the priorities are for their communities.
That will be the conversation that will take place at that table, which I think is our first go at nation-to-nation, actually, senator, where we are there working together to develop a new policy together. So it is, I think, yet to be determined what that will look like, but it will be determined together.
The Chair: Could you go on second round? I believe the minister has to leave at 7:45; is that correct?
Ms. Bennett: I will stay the full hour.
Senator Enverga: Thank you, minister, for coming here today. I read your presentation. It's really good and well detailed. My question is more for the First Nations Land Management Regime.
When the committee's report was issued on June 2015, 94 First Nations had entered into the First Nations Land Management Regime. Thirty-six of them have operational land codes and 58 were in the developmental stages. As of January 2016, 95 First Nations had entered into the First Nations Land Management Regime, and in its 2015 report the committee recommended that the backlog of applicants to join the First Nations Land Management Regime be addressed and the department explore financing options to allow former First Nations to participate in the regime. At present, how many First Nations have operational land codes under the First Nations Land Management Regime?
Ms. Bennett: At the present, 57 have their own land codes and 45 are in the process of developing their land codes. I'm happy to report that the waiting list has evaporated. We're in the business of going out and seeking new prospects as I think First Nations are learning from one another how important it is to actually write their own land code and have a way of dealing with these difficult issues that, under the Indian Act, mean it all comes back and forth to our department instead of their being able to make these decisions themselves.
I think it's good news on this. As you know, I sat on the parliamentary committee that studied land management, and I think it was very clear coast to coast to coast that the communities that were making their own decisions on these things were really doing well and that it was something that is almost the first step of getting out from under the Indian Act. The more communities we can get to take this first step, the more we can achieve what we are really hoping for, which is self-government, self-determination. Getting your own decisions on the usage of land is a hugely important first step.
Senator Enverga: Are you saying, minister, there's no backlog?
Ms. Bennett: No.
Senator Enverga: That's great. That's very good.
Ms. Bennett: They're great. Good work.
Senator Enverga: Have you provided any financial support in this regard? Are there any financial difficulties right now at this point?
Ms. Bennett: As you know, our department is always happy to provide support for people having trouble with this, and so there is the program that helps the training and development phase, but then there's also an approach that if there is difficulty happening, then the department is always happy to support that with expertise and/or funding.
Senator Enverga: You mentioned that everybody is cooperating, but are there other First Nations that don't want to participate in this?
Ms. Bennett: Yes. Whatever you could do to encourage them, I'd be very happy. I think this is part of our challenge right now. As the Minister of Justice always says, when communities are ready, willing and able to get out from under the Indian Act, we need to do that and give that assistance as quickly as we can.
I am concerned. There are too many First Nations who I think are very able but as yet aren't willing because, again, there's some concern about the fiscal relationship with the Crown, those kinds of concerns. So we really need to celebrate this very important first step and to encourage those communities that are able to do this to actually take this first step. For the communities: Try it; I think you'll like it.
Also get out and see some of the communities that have already enjoyed the success. I think what we're seeing is there is much more of this partnering amongst the successful First Nations and some of the ones that are struggling, actually mentoring and coaching, which I also think is a really exciting development as we go forward.
Senator Enverga: What percentage of First Nations have availed of this and how many more are we still waiting for in trying to work on land management?
Ms. Bennett: We're only at 136 in the process, so we've got 500 to go. We have work to do. That's why we want to put in place all the incentives to see really how important this is to progress.
I remember Robert Louie, when he was chief at Westbank, used to always talk about being able to move at the speed of business and that it took 10 years to get a Royal Bank in his community in terms of the to'ing and fro'ing that happens under the Indian Act in terms of permissions and these kinds of things. I think he and others have been great promoters of why it's important to do this, but we need to get going much faster.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, minister, for being here. We spent some time researching the expansion that we suggested of the Ministerial Loan Guarantees and really tried to shape the recommendation around the idea that is in play in Great Britain where municipalities that are largely in charge of infrastructure and housing benefit from the stamp of the government in terms of the cost of funds.
We want to take that one step further, though, and say that's important. Our understanding through the testimony that we heard is that typically, the Ministerial Loan Guarantee is being used in conjunction with individuals that have the wherewithal to build a house and that the bands' administrations are kind of counter-parties to help facilitate the transaction.
I don't think we were fully aware, but maybe you can confirm this is your understanding, that the Ministerial Loan Guarantees program is being used for social housing, for larger projects, for subdivisions and so on. If that's the case, I would ask if the department could supply us with the information on that, because that wasn't made clear to us by those that use the program. That's number one.
Number two is the idea to use the Ministerial Loan Guarantees program as a way in which maybe in the early years there isn't enough own-source revenue to support it but over time there will be. We know there's lots of evolution coming on where money comes from for First Nations governments. and that in all likelihood will increase.
The idea of off-balance-sheet financing for both parties, essentially by the use of this mechanism, could be helpful where maybe the band only has 10 or 20 per cent of the money to make the payments in the beginning, but we know that over time they will get to 100 per cent and more, so there needs to be a loan guarantee, which makes it cheap for everybody, and kind of a bridge funding of payments for a period of time until their own-source revenues grow into it as a way to address it now.
It was very clear there are billions of dollars that need to be spent right away just to cure the backlog. We heard testimony that we'd put it maybe at $5 billion just to get caught up and not to deal with the damaged and uninhabitable or barely habitable homes that exist within the existing stock.
This is a problem we all understand no government can write a single cheque on, but is there a way to finance ourselves the way many of us are doing with our children these days, where we're making the payments now in the hopes that maybe they'll get enough of a raise next year to make all of the payments. I apologize to everyone who was probably offended with the parent-child analogy, but the fact of the matter is that we're all very hopeful that revenues will grow.
I know you said it's there. It's working wonderfully, if I read the text. I disagree. I think there's more that could be done. I know you're very thorough and know your file, so I would ask you to press the questions and force the answers to be more than just, "Oh, yes, it's great, we don't need to change it.''
Ms. Bennett: I think we're totally in agreement with the committee's recommendation that we need to increase the efficiency, but as you've said, whether it's a program or rights, if people don't know it's there, then it's not working. We need to communicate better that this is available to not only the band councils but the band housing authorities or the corporations.
It seems that we have already guaranteed about $1.74 billion, which is for home ownership and for social housing, but I think there is an opportunity, as more and more communities are asking for an elders' complex where they could move elders into a more communal setting and free up housing for others, that we can make sure this tool is well understood and utilized.
As you know, there are many exciting, innovative approaches to getting First Nations a credit rating such that they can borrow. I think this has been quite a problem for a number of communities.
Also, as you know, we added money in the budget to the First Nations Finance Authority, and they are doing an amazing job in putting money to work to be able to create these with a huge success rate in terms of how they've been able to do this. Absolutely.
Then I think your advice as to whether does it just have to be housing or could they use it for other kinds of infrastructure in terms of a loan guarantee, that is certainly something we're working on with Infrastructure Canada to have a look at all the things we might want to be able to do in a more creative and flexible way.
Senator Tannas: And if I may push my luck for 15 seconds, the other one that I know the board is interested in is loan guarantees for economic development, which leads all roads to increased own-source revenue and so on that is just so critical. So I'm glad this is on your radar. Thank you, minister.
The Chair: I would like to welcome Senator Sinclair to the committee. He's a new member, and I believe this is the first time that we've had a formal meeting since your arrival. Welcome.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, chair.
I had 22 questions, minister, but Senator Tannas took all the time. So I'm going to limit it to just two areas.
Ms. Bennett: You've already given me 94 recommendations that I have to deal with.
Senator Sinclair: I knew that you were busy implementing each and every one of them, so the reality is that you don't need to fill too many gaps here.
In terms of the issue of additional funding that's being provided and has come out of the recent budget, I wonder if you might be able to share with the members of the committee how much of that is going to actual departmental costs as opposed to costs that are being filtered through to the First Nations communities on the ground.
Ms. Bennett: I think this is a good news story, so I want the exact facts, so we'll have the financial guru. But while he's getting it ready for you, I'm very excited that 80 per cent on these kinds of things is out the door already, which is unprecedented in terms of people knowing what they're going to get in an agreement. Because there was such a backlog, there were tremendous proposals already in, and I think that's why we got the amount of money we did, because the department had an amazing track record of getting money out the door and the fact that you've got really concrete proposals that you're asking for money for was quite good.
How much is out the door, and how much does it take to keep your lights on at your department, Paul?
Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Sector, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, minister. The majority of that money is actually for vote 10 under estimates, and that is grants and contributions. Very little is actually for the department itself, which is under vote 1.
In terms of money out the door, about 80 per cent already of Budget 2016 funds in terms of actual cash or funding agreements signed is already committed of that funding, and that's just the vote 10, so that's money that goes to recipients.
Senator Sinclair: So do I understand that answer to mean that the departmental costs are only 20 per cent of that money?
Mr. Thoppil: No, it means that 20 per cent of Budget 2016 funds are still yet to go.
Senator Sinclair: My question was about the first point, and that is how much of the money that is being assigned to the department goes to departmental costs versus the benefits of the communities.
Mr. Thoppil: On the infrastructure side from Budget 2016, I would say $750 million is going out the door. In terms of the cost of administration, it would have to be around 40 or less.
Senator Sinclair: Percentage-wise, what does that give us as a per cent, 90 per cent? Is that close?
Mr. Thoppil: It's less than that, senator.
The Chair: Would you mind repeating the answer?
Mr. Thoppil: In terms of the operating or vote 1, it comes to $30 million to $40 million, and that comes to maybe around 5 per cent at best.
Senator Sinclair: So 5 per cent of the allocation is going to departmental costs as opposed to First Nations costs.
Mr. Thoppil: Of the overall amount of infrastructure money, yes, about 5 per cent.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you. Do you have any idea how that compares to other departmental spending versus the department here? What percentage of departmental spending in other areas with other departments goes to administrative costs versus money going out the door, so to speak?
Mr. Thoppil: When it comes to grants and contributions administration, we compare very favourably to other departments. There is a benchmark that has been done, and it takes advantage of the fact that we already have economies of scale. We already have a regional office network in, so the incremental cost to get an extra dollar of infrastructure out the door compared to other ministries is very favourable.
Senator Sinclair: Assuming that is all true, you should be publicizing that information a great deal more than you are.
Mr. Thoppil: The Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report that said that actually infrastructure —
Senator Sinclair: Everybody reads his report; I'm sure. That's very intense reading at dinner tables.
The second area I wanted to ask about has to do with construction standards. There has been a great deal written when it comes to housing issues in First Nations communities indicating that the type of housing that's being constructed in First Nations communities is not appropriate to the location, weather or environment in which those houses are being constructed. I wonder whether you would be able to share, minister, whether standards that are more appropriate, particularly to remote and northern communities, have been developed or will be developed in order to ensure that housing in northern and remote communities can last longer than it does now.
Ms. Bennett: I think that, in my travels, some of the stories are just awful in terms of whether it's for the R35 houses in our most northern communities to the fact that they were all bought in Florida and shipped to Labrador. This is really not working. I could quote Mike Holmes, but I would be swearing, I think, that we've got to stop building "shit,'' I think is what he said, or maybe it was a different word.
I think this is what's so exciting right now. You're starting to see architects and indigenous architects, and everybody wants to help us with this. It means that where there can be newer materials or whether there can be — I guess it's magnesium oxide — is it? What is the fancy new no-mould material? There are exciting things about people wanting to help us do this differently — Lego kinds of housing that can be done in modules and can be expanded for larger families.
I think we are interested in learning about this, but we are also interested in working with First Nations and the technical advisory committees, particularly in Alberta and Ontario, and maybe having other regions of the country exploring what the appropriate building codes would be and also how you enforce them.
It's heartbreaking to hear from the Aboriginal firefighters about what they're facing in these places that go up like a tinderbox. I think this is an area where we would really like to work. I think at the housing conference in Winnipeg at the beginning of November, these are the kinds of things that are going to be discussed, but we just have to do better.
I do think that there's going to be really exciting opportunities to try new things and sort out what is the code, and then how do we make sure that things are built to code and enforced.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, minister.
The Chair: I'd like a supplementary as well on this, talking about housing in northern and remote communities.
I know that in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, there have been a number of fires in remote First Nation communities where, unfortunately, there have been children that have died. It's related partly to poor construction, but it's also related to the lack of access to firefighters and the equipment.
What initiatives have there been that would alleviate some of that? I know that in some situations there is a First Nation and there is the municipality nearby, but they weren't cooperating. Are there any initiatives to overcome that gap in services?
Ms. Bennett: I think there's been some really important initiatives on the whole fire safety prevention piece, whether that's carbon monoxide monitors and smoke detectors to all of the homes. I think that there are things that we know the firefighters want to help with to be able to prevent that.
As you say, there are other infrastructure problems that feed into this, not only the lack of equipment or the ability to be able to have the fire equipment that works for that particular community, whether it's pulling water out of the lake or whether it's a fire truck with the water on board.
The terrible deaths in Pikangikum were because the road was so bad. The road was so bad that the fire engine couldn't get down there over this horrific corduroy. That just meant that by the time the fire truck got there, the house had gone, and they couldn't save anybody. The grave site with the little tiny graves and the seven deaths is something you never forget. We must do better.
In the community planning, sometimes we are hearing proposals of somebody who wants a water system for the school instead of hooking up to the municipal water system. The municipal system would allow fire hydrants and all of these things. To just put in a water system for a school without understanding that you want to build a subdivision or you want to have hydrants nearby as part of the community plan, that's the reason why your recommendation on community planning is so important, so that you can actually design a community that builds in this really important aspect of fire protection.
Senator Raine: My supplementary is following up on Senator Sinclair's question, and I'm also thinking about the code you mentioned. We can't have a code for Canada. It's so different from one point to another. We heard over and over that it is so important that housing be culturally appropriate.
We visited a fair number of reserves. Some of the homes that have been there for 50 to 100 years are still standing, but they were built out of logs in the old-fashioned way. We heard over and over that everything new isn't always better for where they are.
I hope any codes developed really take into account that R35 might not be as important as something that is more culturally important.
Ms. Bennett: I couldn't agree with you more, senator. This must be done bottom-up. Having some top-down thing imported won't work. We have to listen and know what's possible in all different areas.
Access to fire protection may mean that a stronger code would be needed in places where the fire protection wouldn't be as good or may be difficult to access.
I agree. Sometimes we talk about minimum standards or min specs. Everything would at least have to have that. Then people would be able to build to their own standard. However, we won't be doing this without listening to communities and working with the AFN and northern communities to know what they need.
Senator Raine: Thank you. It is so important to listen to the people who will live in those houses. Sometimes we think we know better in the south, but it doesn't work where they live.
Ms. Bennett: I remember, senator, the conversation we had about vestibules in the north and how you couldn't build a house without a vestibule when a cold wind could come in and it leads to condensation.
Senator Raine: I did want to ask you about exploring the possibility of opt-in legislation in consultation with First Nations, which would make section 89 of the Indian Act inapplicable. That opt-in legislation could facilitate private property ownership for First Nation members living on reserve. I'm just wondering if the private property opt-in legislation is still alive and still being considered.
Ms. Bennett: Our department continues to work with Manny Jules and the First Nations Tax Commission on this possibility. Many communities have fee simple adjacent to the reserve land, and that's the way they've chosen to deal with this.
There are many people who feel that, in terms of community, the reserve needs to be intact for future generations and that having private ownership on reserve may risk who it's sold to and then who that's sold to. Somebody described it as a paper punch that goes through it until it looks like a doily and there is no community left. More and more communities are choosing to do a structure similar to a condominium; having people own their house, and the private ownership of the house, but the communities still retain title to the land.
We're still exploring, and opt-in is opt-in, as you say. The concerns I heard from some leaders and community members is that if a chief and council make this decision now and the land disappears, what happens to the next generation or the next generation? It would be pretty hard to get all that back. Again, thinking seven generations out, some people see in some communities that this might be a higher risk than they want to take.
Senator Moore: Thank you, minister and staff, for being here. With regard to the building code matter that my colleagues raised and the enforcement of it, you say that we highlight the needs for the codes and standards in terms of administration of housing infrastructure.
We visited a number of reserves. We also had witnesses discuss the building codes. A number of the buildings were financed by CMHC, and the CMHC officer didn't need to know that, for example, the roof was on and tight, that the walls were up and insulated, that the plumbing was in properly. When we confronted them, they passed it off to the chief. "It's not us; it's the chief who is responsible for implementing the building code.'' The chief has no idea about the building standards. What are you doing about that?
You talked about working with First Nations infrastructure experts. Well, I hope some of those experts are the actual people on the reserves who are trying to improve their situations for themselves and their families, because housing is at the very core of the problems on reserves and in our First Nations communities. That's where dignity and wholeness of the family begins.
I'm sort of surprised that we're just getting around to some of this stuff now. The department has been in existence since 1869. Are your officials looking at that in a meaningful way?
Ms. Bennett: You're absolutely right, senator. In terms of the expertise and the capacity, you had recommended a qualified housing manager to be within communities. We are trying to build that kind of capacity such that First Nations and communities can actually know their inventory and know what needs to be done to be able to put in the kinds of requests we need.
Frankly, we are worried this year. The reason that we're really trying to help and why we put the budget or the proposal asks in three tranches was because some communities are really good at getting their proposals in. Those sometimes are the ones who don't need it as much as the ones who are struggling more. We're trying to build capacity, give people time and get them some help to put in the proposals.
You have to create the building code, but then someone has to know how to enforce it. We don't even have fire inspectors or prevention to get to the homes and see what is going on. As you know, when you can see down to the basement when you're standing next to somebody's wood stove, that isn't a good thing. So building to code, in terms of new builds, is one thing, but there's a lot of housing on-reserve that is just completely unsafe right now.
Senator Moore: I know. We've seen a lot of it.
Ms. Bennett: We've got to replace that. None of us would want to live like that. Also, sometimes three and four nuclear families are all living in one house.
Senator Moore: We've seen that. I know, minister, you're in the job less than a year. Today is your first anniversary of victory. Congratulations. But these points that are raised in our report, whether it's you or somebody else, have got to be looked at in a timely way.
The matter of the planning for five years for financing, that's just normal. You're saying here you support the development of a comprehensive community. I don't know what that means. That's just gibberish to me. What are we doing? The reality of living. We know the reality. We've seen it. Your department must know it by now.
It seems to me you're counting on a lot to come out of that conference in Winnipeg in November, but surely some of this information, minister, has to be in your department somewhere and should be acted upon. There seems to be a culture of same old, same old. Turn it around.
Ms. Bennett: My concern, senator, is that in your Recommendation 13, you've said that we need to help fund for the development of comprehensive community plans. That means that, whether it's five years or ten years or a master plan like other communities have, you've got to know we're going to do this and then we're going to do this, and that it actually has to deal with it.
What we're finding, whether it's missing and murdered indigenous women and girls or whether it's child welfare, if communities come together to plan — and that means that the teachers, the police, the chief and council and the youth are all around a table planning for their community in a visioning exercise that says this is our priority for this year, and next year we're going to do that and next year we're going to do that — then you actually see real things happening that make for safer communities.
My problem is that only 25 per cent of First Nations have a community plan. We believe that that exercise would be really important, and whatever we can do over this next little while to incent that activity, it is going to be imperative. Then, as we move to a 10-year infrastructure hopefully in next year's budget, we will know how much we have and we can help prepare First Nations for how much they will have so that they can actually plan their communities properly, as well as trying to change the fiscal arrangement.
Senator Moore: That's commendable. I hope that we don't hear of any more situations where First Nations are given money in December and told it's got to be spent on housing by the end of March. That doesn't exactly endear the department to anybody, particularly us. I know they're capable of much more.
With regard to firefighting, we heard some evidence here from the chief of the province of Quebec First Nations department. The gear and the pumpers didn't match the hydrants. That is fundamental stuff. Somehow that was let to happen. It shouldn't be, and we can do much better. These people want to do much better. This doesn't help them and their self-worth and dignity, when they're not able to even help fight the fire properly. We have to do better, and we can.
Ms. Bennett: I think that the technical advisory committees that stood up in Alberta and Ontario are helping with these kinds of decisions. How do communities make decisions? If they're being sold something that actually will not be able to be hooked up to this, no matter what the vendor says, this won't happen, you actually need technical expertise to go in and say, "No, this is too good to be true,'' and we need that.
There are predatory practices. There are predatory practices in water systems and in mental health programs. We have to sort these out. I'm very pleased that the Aboriginal Firefighters Association is working with the technical advisory committee here in Ontario. I think there is going to be some progress on this, and training, too.
Senator Moore: I'm happy to hear that.
The Chair: I would like to welcome Senator Martin to the committee. I believe you're a new member. This would be your first formal meeting. Welcome.
Senator Martin: Thank you, madam chair. Actually, I'm a returning member, but it has been a few years since being at this table.
Thank you so much, minister, for your extended time and your officials that are here. I was not a part of the study, but I want to thank the members of this committee for the hard work that they did and the recommendations that have come forth.
You mentioned that you have already implemented a number of recommendations and you're looking at more. Would you specify how many more recommendations? Are you looking to implement all of them? How many are you looking at next? I'm curious about the progress you have made since the report has been released.
Ms. Bennett: That's a good question, because I think a number of the recommendations had two and three points in them. We can get that for you in terms of where we think we are with each of them, or even the ones like on the ministerial loan, where we're actually already doing it; it just wasn't well communicated. We can get that for you.
Senator Martin: As I said, I wasn't part of the committee, so I'm curious: Are you accepting all the recommendations?
Ms. Bennett: It's like anything. We think it's all good advice, and we'll work towards them, for sure.
Senator Martin: Thank you for that. I do think it speaks to the work of the committee.
Something you said towards the end of your remarks really intrigues me. I recently read about the proposed infrastructure bank, and it is very interesting, but it's a big idea and big ideas do take time. Can you give us a timeline as to when this would be potentially established? Is there a timeline?
Ms. Bennett: I think they're hoping by next year's budget to have it ready to announce in terms of how it will go forward. As you know, the infrastructure bank is the idea that our pension funds and all of these are investing in other countries and not investing here in Canada, so how do we put some government money in that will attract big dollars from other sources of funds?
I think you're right that there is a concern that this is for financing really big projects more often, so what we're trying to explore now is whether there may be certain First Nations or a group of First Nations that would have a project that would benefit from that, whether it's roads or whether it's working with a province or a territory. The consultations are just going on now on what it would look like to be able to attract the best partners possible for it.
Senator Martin: When I was looking at this, I was imagining whether this or something else is set up. As you said, you can have great programs, but it's difficult to access them or there are gaps or barriers to accessing such funds. I'm wondering about your department's approach to identifying those barriers. When you do identify where the gaps may be, how do you bridge and fill those gaps? What do you do to ensure that the access is maximized or improved?
Ms. Bennett: To the funding or to the capital?
Senator Martin: The need is urgent, as is indicated in the report. Big ideas take time. There are so many things you have to work on, I realize, but in order to improve the immediate need, there would need to be clear access. I'm curious, as a department, do you reduce red tape? Are there dedicated departments that are helping specific communities with access? I'm curious about your approach as a department.
Ms. Bennett: One of the things I was really surprised about, compared to my other colleagues in cabinet, is how decentralized our department is in terms of really counting on the regions to know their communities. In our department, regions can approve up to $10 million without it coming here to head office for these kinds of projects. That's why we're able to turn things around so fast, because the regional director general can actually see the needs in their region and be able to prioritize, in a way.
That was the reason why the housing or infrastructure came in three tranches. The regions were worried that the communities who needed it most would be last to the starting gate and the money would all be gone and assigned by the time the more needy communities would even begin to get their proposals in.
Those are the kinds of things we're doing, but I think we can always do better. It is about how we support building the capacity within communities to be able to really run their own show. I must say that I see my job as trying to build institutions, not just programs, and the more we can get moved in to First Nations-led institutions like the First Nations Finance Authority, and other things, the less it's my department playing red light-green light in a way that is still paternalistic and "father knows best.''
I'm really interested when there are institutions like technical advisory committees. Is there a way that eventually we can have decisions that are currently being made in my department, or advice being given by my department, be done in a different way in the region, led by First Nations technical people?
The Chair: Senator Moore, I believe you had a supplementary.
Senator Moore: I was interested in your comments about the regions and the staff and how much they can do, because we visited various reserves and they never saw a person from the region or any one from the staff or the department, and if they did see them, they had to go to their department office to do that. What you're saying isn't what we saw.
With regard to the infrastructure monies that are currently being disbursed to First Nations, must they be spent by March 31, 2017?
David Smith, Acting Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Regional Operations Sector, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you for your question, senator. At the beginning of the year, projects are allocated an amount of funding. Depending on the funding agreement between the recipient and the department, if there is a flex funding agreement, the funding can flow to the following year. Again, as we're all aware, when we're doing a project, while we plan to finish by such a date, there are things, unfortunately, that we can't always manage, like temperature and the environment. So, when there's an issue, at least the project is on scope, even if it's delayed slightly. The funding recipient can keep the funding and ensure that the project is concluded within a reasonable time. That is done in close collaboration with our regional office and the community.
Senator Moore: What percentage of the monies do you think would be in those situations where there may be a need to extend the period of time from which the funds must be expended?
Mr. Smith: The strong majority of the projects are multi-year projects. Funding is allocated, normally, on a yearly basis, with different disbursements done when certain steps of the projects have been completed. Then, if there are issues, a disbursement would not be done. We would allocate the funding to another project, because other projects may move quicker. So we look at the national view of all projects.
Senator Moore: If a project wasn't moving ahead as anticipated — say it was slow — you would take that money and put it on another project?
Mr. Smith: It may happen.
Ms. Bennett: One of the problems in the remote communities has been that you can miss a construction season —
Senator Moore: That's why I'm asking.
Ms. Bennett: — because of climate change and because of winter roads. There are certain parts of Canada that are now only anticipating an eight-week winter road to get all their construction material in. I think what David is saying is that if you've missed the construction season, we can use it somewhere else and get them the money back the following year when they can get the materials in. It's just that kind of flexibility.
Senator Moore: I'm happy to hear that you're sensitive to that issue, because it happens a lot. We heard that and we saw it. Thank you.
The Chair: I believe Senator Watt wants to ask a question on first round.
Senator Watt: It's partially a supplementary.
First of all, welcome to the committee. With regard to the question asked by Senator Moore, I think you have provided an answer basically by saying that if the money is not utilized for some reason, there could be a number of different reasons for that in that one given year.
If you do identify a need for that amount, whatever amount that is, for another client, then you are in a sense, on one hand, allowing that person, company, or corporation to take chances by allowing that money to be used somewhere else, because there's no guarantee that the same amount of dollars will be made available the following year. Is that the sort of predicament you're getting yourself into?
Ms. Bennett: No, I think that's something that is actually part of the decision, knowing that it will be there next year, because that's why we want to do this multi-year funding.
I'm trying to think of an example from my household budget. You just know you can't do this so you can spend it, but you know the money is coming and it will be there next year. That's what a funding agreement is. We've already promised them the money. It's just that, I think, when you renovate your kitchen, you don't give the contractor all the money up front. You actually pay it out in instalments. So it's a matter if this project is being stalled because of weather, we can use the money wisely somewhere else and then put the instalments back in place as soon as the project can go ahead again.
Senator Watt: Minister, I read you and I support what you've been saying. I was also listening to you today at the other conference. I was moved by what you have to say. There's a lot more we can still do as parliamentarians. This is part of our responsibility to represent our people properly and correctly.
You were talking about building it upwards rather than building it downwards. You have to realize that the people that we are dealing with today, probably 40 years ago, they had no way of equipping themselves to be able to handle it. It doesn't matter what kind of project that might be at the community base level. So that has changed.
When the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was put in place, I do believe that that has made a great deal of change within our community, at least in Nunavik. We are almost at the point now where we can say we have been empowered. But that's not the case yet.
Minister, you should have a very clear understanding that it takes time to accept that you're going to be empowered to be able to do certain things and make decisions for yourself, for your own autonomy. We're still quite a distance away from that.
Ms. Bennett: I thank you for your words and your leadership, senator. But I do think that something that you know very well, like Makivik Corporation, that when Nunavik has its ability to build houses, that even if the capacity is not quite there in a much smaller community, Makivik can help them get it done.
We're hoping for more First Nations-led initiatives and corporations like that that can not only get the houses built, but what we're seeing is that when they move into smaller communities, they're teaching people and helping them get the skills and the leadership that helps build the capacity in the neighbouring community.
Senator Watt: Yes, that is true, and that is very much appreciated by every community that I know of in Nunavik. Makivik is doing quite well in that field. But at the same time, you have to understand that Makivik doesn't have engineers, so the engineering and the design of the houses and the concept of certain houses is still designed from down South. When it's already finished its design, then it is brought up to the North. That's where our problem is. We're not being empowered in an area where we should be.
I would like to find out about the types of houses that we do have, which I'm witnessing today, because we're going through a massive renovation on houses. When you take the first layer of siding off the building, you will see the plywood attached to the main house. When you start seeing rotting plywood in every section of that house, there's something wrong. I see myself what is causing it, but the problem is the engineers down South, the ones that are making decisions for us, are the ones who are causing the problem.
Let me give you an example. The houses today that are being built on a yearly basis, and the houses that were built 25 years ago, they just went through a renovation. Unfortunately, all those houses are rotted. So the amount of dollars that was spent 25 years ago, a bungalow was about $350,000. Today you're talking about 500 and some odd thousand dollars. In order to renovate a building that is already standing up, you're spending the exact same amount. You would be better off to build a new house, because those houses that were built 25 years ago are toxic.
The medical sector has not been invited to take a look at those houses, but sometime it's going to happen. Because a septic tank being placed under the floor, sandwiched by two sections, what does that septic tank do? It's a plastic tank. It sweats, and there's also overflow. Where does the waste go? Inside the building. We ended up with toxic houses, left and right, and they are deteriorating, and we're wasting a lot of money. That needs to be corrected. The only way that can be corrected is if we are properly empowered to do things and make decisions for ourselves. The decision is still not made in the community. You may think that is the case, but that's not the case.
Ms. Bennett: I have a good story for you, senator, which is in Haida Gwaii, where they were having the same problem with all the roofs needing to be replaced because they were rotting. They bought a machine that could build steel roofs and put a steel roof on every home in the community rather than shipping them all in, and it's really working for them. Again, you end up with that kind of problem-solving and leadership that was just amazing. They're also heating all of the homes with hot water based on these briquettes they're making out of sawdust and are heating all of the homes in this very safe way.
You think that I'm hoping about the conference in Winnipeg next month, but when people get to share the good ideas that are happening and the solutions, then we will be able to build capacity and people will feel empowered to make these good decisions in terms of their solutions.
Senator Patterson: I'm focusing on some real problems that we saw in our tour. One of them was the shelter allowance portion of income support. This is what is essential for maintenance of band-owned houses. I won't get into the details because you've got our report. The Auditor General reviewed that in 2003.
It's not fair across the country. There are discrepancies, as you know. Your report back to our committee said that you were looking at a whole-of-government plan to address infrastructure challenges, and at that time you didn't think individual issues like shelter allowances could be addressed. But this is a long-standing problem, and we were told that it was one of the things that would make the biggest difference on the ground for First Nations in Saskatchewan, and to rectify it would be $40 million to $65 million a year nationally, which I recognize is a real cost.
Since you sent us your first response, is that on your radar, and is there a possibility of what we thought was an urgent issue being addressed? Because this maintenance issue is so important. If the houses aren't maintained, then we lose the value rapidly.
Ms. Bennett: As you know, the intent of the shelter allowance was to help eligible individuals cover costs like heating and fuel and hydro and utilities. It is a subsidy paid to people on income assistance so that they're better able to meet their living expenses. But as you learned, First Nations do things differently. Some don't pay at all. There's no rent for social housing in certain communities, and in those communities or in some communities that we know of, the shelter allowance that's transferred to the First Nation has been used for finding shelter for people. It is uneven coast to coast to coast, as you've said.
Our department has drafted a directive on shelter allowances to see that that income assistance is more consistently applied, but as you know, we can't do this top down. We've shared it with the Assembly of First Nations and certain First Nation communities that would be affected by it. We'll see what happens, but there's no question that we've got to find a way of just improving the delivery.
Again, in terms of the intent of the allowance to begin with, is there a better way of going about it? As your report showed, when bands were having to move money from the infrastructure fund to be able to pay for the income assistance and these social programs, I think some felt they could maybe use some of the shelter allowance to actually get a place for people to live or for repairs or the repairs that the band was doing, of which money wouldn't necessarily flow to the individual.
Senator Patterson: The First Nations Market Housing Fund, $300 million, is a trust set up six years ago. We felt it wasn't working and it wasn't producing, and it's your colleague, the minister of CMHC, and there was a recommendation that that be reviewed, that the capacity development part of it wasn't working at all. I know it's not your department, but is that on your radar?
Ms. Bennett: Absolutely. Again, as we work with Minister Duclos and as the department is working very closely with CMHC — and again, just as an example, even in the budget ask for 2016, to make sure we weren't overlapping, duplicating, all of that, we're trying to be very clear with one another as to what we're trying to do.
As we build to the national housing strategy, that will include both areas. There is no question that all of the reforms and how we could do this better in terms of the indigenous leaders, the future direction of the fund will be part of this review of how we go forward in the best possible way.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I think we have gone through all the questions. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the committee members for answering so many different questions regarding pretty much all of the recommendations in our report. We were glad to hear that you have basically accepted all the recommendations and you're working on them diligently. Even with recommendation 12 with regard to the Indian monies, the round table has been held, and Senator Tannas and I were happy to attend that, so we thank you for that.
I don't believe there are any further questions, so with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, and thank you to your colleagues as well.
(The committee adjourned.)