AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

0910

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.))

Mr. Michel Roy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Michel Roy

0915

The Chair

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC)

0920

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Maureen McPhee (Director General, Self-Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Maureen McPhee

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

0925

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0930

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Michel Roy

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Michel Roy

0935

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

Ms. Maureen McPhee

0940

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Maureen McPhee

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Maureen McPhee

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Roy

Hon. André Harvey

0945

Mr. Michel Roy

Hon. André Harvey

The Chair

Mr. Phil Fontaine (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations)

0950

0955

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond (Eagle Village First Nation - Kipawa)

1000

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak (President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated)

1005

1010

1015

1020

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

1025

The Chair

1030

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

1035

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1040

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Pauline Picard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1045

Ms. Pauline Picard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Phil Fontaine

1050

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

1055

The Chair

Mr. Phil Fontaine

The Chair

Mr. Phil Fontaine

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

1100

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq (Policy Analyst, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated)

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

1105

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Chief Lance Haymond

1110

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Chief Lance Haymond

1115

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1120

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1125

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

The Chair

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1130

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

1135

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

1140

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1145

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1150

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

1155

The Chair

Mr. Paul Kaludjak

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 009

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): I will now call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study on self-government negotiations. Our witnesses today from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are Michel Roy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, and Ms. Maureen McPhee, Director General, Self-Government. Our meeting with these witnesses will be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and we will add 10 minutes on at the end.

Do you have a statement for us, Mr. Roy?

Mr. Michel Roy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes, if I may. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. You have asked us to speak about self-government negotiations, particularly agreements that have already been negotiated and those that will be coming forward.

If I may, I would like to start by explaining the context in which we are negotiating. This will give you an understanding of the different categories of negotiations and agreements. A table setting out this information has been distributed to you. My presentation will be short in order to allow you time to ask questions.

The Inherent Right Policy of 1995 envisioned the negotiation of practical and workable agreements on how self-government will be exercised with first nations and other aboriginal groups like the Inuit and Métis of Canada. The Federal Interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians represents the federal government in the negotiations. Given the vastly different circumstances of aboriginal people, the Government of Canada is prepared to negotiate agreements which are responsive to their particular political, legal and social circumstances, and also their aspirations regarding the exercise of jurisdictions.

The federal government does not believe that there is one unique model that can apply to all circumstances. Nevertheless, all agreements contain common provisions, even if the provisions are not always formulated in the same way. All agreements are negotiated within the framework of the Constitution of Canada. They must include a clause on the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal and provincial laws continue to apply. Agreements must address questions of conflict of laws or harmonization. The law-making powers cannot include powers related to the sovereignty of Canada, defence and foreign affairs or any other national interest power. Agreements include provisions on financial and political accountability.

One method of exercising self-government by an aboriginal group is through a stand-alone self-government agreement. In this type of agreement—and this is the first category of negotiations—there is a description of the jurisdictions, their scope, elements of the Constitution and other general provisions as previously described. The Westbank self-government agreement, which this committee recently reviewed and which I understand is going back to the House of Commons for third reading this morning, is one example of this type of negotiation.

Next year, we hope to introduce legislation to give effect to a self-government agreement with the United Anishnaabeg Council, which represents eight first nations. There are currently 14 stand-alone negotiation tables that involve 198 first nations and aboriginal communities negotiating self-government agreements of the Westbank type.

Other aboriginal groups prefer to negotiate sectoral agreements that involve only one jurisdiction, generally education. These agreements also contain provisions regarding the constitution of the one or more aboriginal governments, if there are groupings, and general provisions.

Mr. Michel Roy: Most of the first nations who have chosen to negotiate sectoral agreements are located in Ontario. We are involved in negotiations on education with the Union of Ontario Indians, Fort Francis, and the Nishnaabe-Aski Nation. In total, we have 103 communities involved in 6 active sectoral negotiations.

Finally, provisions on self-government can be found in comprehensive claim agreements or modern treaties. In this category, there is the agreement with the Nisga'a which Parliament ratified in 2000, and the agreement with the Tlicho in the Northwest Territories for which legislation to give effect to the agreement will soon be introduced in the House of Commons. In total, there are 52 comprehensive claim negotiations dealing with self-government, of which 42 are in British Columbia.

In general, the same subjects and provisions as exist in a stand-alone agreement are included. In addition, comprehensive claim agreements address the regulation of rights and benefits accorded by the agreement to first nations, and their participation in management boards in the case of an agreement north of 60.

The self-government provisions can be the subject of a separate agreement ratified at the same time as the comprehensive claim agreement, as found in the Yukon. In such a case, the agreement is not protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.

In 2003, final agreements were initialled with three first nations in the Yukon and the Labrador Inuit Association. Some of these have been ratified or are about to be ratified by the first nations concerned. We hope to sign the agreements that have been ratified by the aboriginal groups this year.

Self-government is not a recent concept, even if for the moment it is not very widespread. There are already 24 first nations who are operating under a self-government regime. The first communities were the James Bay Cree and Naskapis in 1984, then Sechelt, nine first nations in Yukon and four Nisga'a communities in British Columbia. Furthermore, there is one sectoral agreement on education with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia that was ratified by Parliament in 1998.

It is very clear, however, that since the adoption of the Inherent Right Policy by the Government of Canada, the number of tables has grown significantly over the years so that we are now negotiating at 72 tables, involving 71 per cent of aboriginal communities across the country. In addition to the negotiations already underway, there are other aboriginal groups who want to enter into self-government negotiations.

The self-government process is, however, long and complex. The aboriginal communities must not only define their own government structure which reflects their values and culture, but also in many cases create a regional or provincial government and codify the authorities of each level of government in its constitution. In effect, almost half of the negotiation tables involve an aggregation of communities. In addition, in the north in order to respect the ethnic diversity of communities, the governments are public governments with guaranteed aboriginal representation.

We estimate that the process of negotiating a self-government agreement takes 10 years. That may seem long, but we are convinced that the benefits for our aboriginal partners are worth the investment required.

Research from Harvard in the United States shows that the aboriginal communities with a government which reflects their culture and traditions have better socio-economic success than the communities that come under the American Indian Act.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Before we begin the question period, I would like to ask you two questions myself.

There are 42 negotiation tables in British Columbia. Our researcher told us that this is because there was no treaty there. Could you tell us why?

Mr. Michel Roy: At the moment, there are no treaties in British Columbia, except for the one with the Nisga'a. There is a negotiation process in place involving the Federal Treaty Negotiation Office and the British Columbia Treaty Commission. There is a tripartite process for negotiations on treaties and comprehensive claims. It is true that there are 42 tables actively involved in negotiations in British Columbia at the moment.

The Chair: I have one last question.

As we know, at the moment, there are about 80 negotiation tables in Canada. People involved tell me that there is no communication between several of them. As a result, participants at these tables do not know what is happening at other tables.

Could steps be taken to organize—either at the federal level, in BC or in another province—a three-day round-table so that groups can discuss the negotiations among themselves? At the moment, government officials travel around from one community to another to explain what is going on in the other provinces. However, we should be organizing a three-day round-table meeting so that these people can talk to each other. Could that be done?

Mr. Michel Roy: It is certainly a possibility. However, a great deal of information is transferred from table to table. The aboriginal groups and stakeholders share information as well, at both the provincial and federal levels.

In addition, last fall, the first nations that now have a self-government regime in place held a conference for the first time in November. They held this conference to discuss issues related to their situation.

Nevertheless, I will note your suggestion of organizing a day-long meeting or a discussion session.

The Chair: One day is too short.

Mr. Michel Roy: That is true, three days would be better.

The Chair: More can be accomplished in three days. Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Having had the privilege to be up this last year in Nunavut—in Iqaluit, the capital—I really enjoyed the fine people sitting in their assembly. It was a unique experience to interact with different folk from the Nunavut government. Their structure there is a public rather than an Inuit-exclusive government—and there are other examples. It's not the only one that has that: there are others that have agreements in principle similar to it.

I'm wondering what would be the downside of having that kind of approach. It appears to be working for them. They seem to be promoters of that particular style or perspective. What would be the downside, or maybe the upside, of having that elsewhere and using it in a broader-based way in some of these other agreements in principle for self-government?

¿ (0920)

Mr. Michel Roy: Are you talking about having the same kind of government we have in Nunavut right now—public?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, I mean public instead of exclusive and based on the particular tribe or whatever it happens to be.

Mr. Michel Roy: The situation of the Nunavut territory is a different situation. We have to look at....

[Translation]

We should take a close look at the situation in Nunavut. In this case, a territory was created, not a self-government agreement within a province or another territory. The fact that the territory of Nunavut was created is quite unique to this agreement. However, in the north, in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, we talk about public government, precisely because there is a mixture of people. There are no reserves in these territories, but there is a mixture of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

In a situation of this type, public governments are established, which are somewhat similar to the one in Nunavut at the moment, except that Nunavut is really a new Canadian territory that was created.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess, then, these other agreements signed on June 23, 2002—the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Beaufort-Delta agreement—also are ones providing for public, regional, and community governments, all with guaranteed aboriginal representation. So it's being done elsewhere on a more limited scale. Can you give me some perspective on that?

Ms. Maureen McPhee (Director General, Self-Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes, that's correct; the Inuvialuit/Gwich'in agreement in principle, and also the Déline agreement in principle are both public governments. That is an approach that has been followed in the Northwest Territories as well. As Mr. Roy mentioned, because these are mixed communities we don't have Indian reserves, so it's a practical approach to have a public government, whereas in southern Canada, where we have reserves, where there's a land base and there is already a band council government operating on that land, it's approached more from a perspective of being an aboriginal government.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What about situations or scenarios in the country where you have a mix? I understand what you're saying: it predominates that way. But there are parts of Canada where you have a number of other people who are non-first nations on this reserve or in that area, and it's not only exclusively first nations' people there. Would this be a workable thing in those other situations? I know what you're trying to say by portraying it as mostly a different configuration there, but that's not exclusively so. Are there possibilities in other situations for that approach to be taken?

Ms. Maureen McPhee: It is not something that has come up at any of our other tables. In most instances, the population on an Indian reserve is very largely first nations people. In those instances there's already a band government, as I've mentioned, so we're proceeding along those lines as well. It's quite a different situation in the north. I think that's why the approach there was different.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I'll turn it over to my colleague.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): Thank you.

I'm quite interested in the budget speech. There was a provision—it's not a big budget provision, I don't think, but it could be an important part of the continuing evolution of the self-government policy—with money set aside for the creation of a centre for training aboriginals in governance. I don't know the exact name of it, but it was important enough to be mentioned in the budget.

Could you give me any idea of the status of that and what progress has been made on it? I hear rumours that it has gone sideways; that perhaps there isn't going to be money provided for it, or it isn't going to go ahead. I think that would be a shame, because regardless of what form self-government is going to take, aboriginal people are going to need training in governance issues, and that sort of centre, it seems to me, could be a key part of making them successful.

¿ (0925)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Roy: It is true that there was an announcement in the budget about a governance centre. I think that yesterday at the aboriginal summit, the creation of this centre was confirmed. Moreover, work is underway to develop a proposal on the operation of the centre, and it will be submitted to the department. Consequently, there is a desire to move forward on this. This centre could support aboriginal communities in establishing their local self-government, provide training and support, and be a place for exchanging information on best practices, and so on.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's something I think is a great idea. I think it's essential, as I say, to make self-government agreements work well and to have people who are trained in that specific type of government, and I think this sort of centre might be key for it.

I've put forward a proposal—there's some self-interest in this—in my own riding, where the federal government has transferred the old CFB Chilliwack lands to Canada Lands Company. Actually, the local university is going to transfer there, and the university, I know, is very interested in working with aboriginal people and the federal government to make that self-government centre part of the university complex.

I just put that bug in your ear. It needs to be built somewhere, but regardless, let me put that plug in for the old CFB Chilliwack lands. It's going to be a multi-university site that I think would lend itself well to.... We have, as you know, a large aboriginal population in Chilliwack, but more importantly, it's located in the type of setting and a type of community I think aboriginal people would be comfortable in, and the training would be top-notch. If I could just put that bug in your ear—not to put it off the radar screen—the concept is ideal, and I think it should go ahead.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Roy and Ms. McPhee. I would like to thank you for this summary you gave us in your presentation, because this is the first time I have heard anything like that, and it gives me a much better idea of what is happening with the negotiations.

I am almost tempted to ask you an initial question about Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper, or almost did, last year.

Why did the government try to bring forward a bill of this type, given that according to your presentation, 71 per cent of communities are already negotiating agreements, and Bill C-7 was totally rejected by all the aboriginal communities? Why was this bill brought forward when, in my opinion, things are going well? I will find this out from my other questions, but what was the function of Bill C-7 with respect to the current negotiations? I am trying to understand this.

Mr. Michel Roy: The self-government negotiations are a way for aboriginal groups to get away from the Indian Act, to no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. At the same time, I think there was a desire or an attempt by the government to at least change or update the Indian Act to some extent, because there is still a majority of aboriginal groups that do come under the Indian Act. Consequently, this was an attempt to renew the act, to bring it up-to-date.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: But the minister told us that this would not change the Indian Act, that it was really a sort of addition that was being made to it. I called it a boil, but everything depends on one's point of view, of course. We wasted a great deal of time and resources on that, which could have been used to speed up the self-government negotiations or passage of these treaties by Parliament. In any case, I am still wondering about this, because we spent 55 days here debating a bill which died on the Order Paper. That is not exactly an indication of efficiency on the part of the government. I am not talking about the negotiation tables, but rather about the political component.

I have a question for you about the Royal Commission Report, the Erasmus-Dussault Report. When it was tabled in 1998, people said that in 20 years the self-government issue could be settled with all of the aboriginal nations. I see that you are negotiating with 71 per cent of the communities at the moment.

At the rate things are progressing—you say negotiations can last as long as 10 years—can we hope that by the year 2018, we will have settled all of the treaties and the issue of self-government for all the first nations of Canada?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Michel Roy: It is very difficult to make any predictions in this regard, because we must also bear in mind that there are other partners at these negotiating tables—namely, the provinces and the territories. So these negotiations should be tripartite, and thus it becomes more difficult to plan and make any predictions about the length of time that will be required. However, at the current table, every year we take the time to review our strategy and review the progress that has been made to ensure that we are really heading in the right direction, that we have a common vision with our aboriginal partners, and the provinces or territories. That enables us to focus on those tables where we are hopeful of reaching agreements more quickly, rather than having them drag on for years and years.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Could you give me a breakdown by type of agreement for the 71 per cent of aboriginal communities involved in sectoral negotiation tables? What percentage of the negotiations underway at the moment are for self-government agreements, sectoral and comprehensive agreements and modern treaties? Can you give me that breakdown?

Mr. Michel Roy: We do not have that information here, but we could definitely give you those figures.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: However, generally speaking, are we talking about a majority of self-government agreements? Are we talking about modern treaties, or are we talking rather about a majority of sectoral treaties?

Mr. Michel Roy: Because of British Columbia's specific situation, where we already have 42 tables for comprehensive claims negotiations, involved in negotiating new treaties, I would say that a great deal of our effort is focused in this area. However, we do have a number of self-government tables, which do account for a significant percentage of the negotiations. I gave you the figures earlier: there are 198 first nations or communities involved in self-government negotiations.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm having difficulty, Mr. Roy, understanding the major difference between a self-government agreement and a modern treaty, because we often hear general references to the inherent right to self-government.

In which of these agreements is the inherent right to self-government better reflected? If there are some differences, I would like to you to really give the...

Mr. Michel Roy: The major differences is that under the new treaties or what we call comprehensive claims, we negotiate with groups that have not signed a treaty with the federal Crown, which do not have a historic treaty. These become what we call territorial claims. We negotiate the territory, we negotiate a new treaty, and in this context, there is a component on self-government. In the other case, the self-government agreement, we focus solely on self-government, because these are groups that already have both a territory and a treaty.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I only wish we had more time, frankly, because we're only going to be able to touch on these very complex issues.

My specific question to you, or what I'd like to ask your views on at least, is that in reading the overview of the status of the many complex negotiations underway, and what most of us view as the frustratingly long timeframes, would you recommend or see it as beneficial if the Government of Canada and the other levels of government stepped back and finally gave some meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution? Would it enable those complex negotiations to move more freely and rapidly if people had some agreement and some consensus as to what the inherent rights—aboriginal and treaty rights—under section 35 really mean? Would you see that as advantageous?

Mr. Michel Roy: What I will say is that we are trying to find some practical way of implementing the inherent right. That's what we are negotiating.

[Translation]

We're really negotiating practical, concrete ways of implementing self-government, the inherent right. Rather than defining it as such, we're simply trying to find practical ways of implementing it, and we think that is the most efficient approach.

¿ (0935)

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: It's in the absence of any definition.... Seeing that there is no broad consensus as to what aboriginal and treaty rights mean, or the inherent right to those rights.... This is how we wound up with the Liberal Party taking a constitutional court challenge to the Nisga'a case, because nobody really knew if the jurisdiction for legislative authority comes from sections 91 and 92 of the 1867 Constitution, or if section 35 trumps that in some way. We have to leave it up to the courts always to tell us.

Wouldn't you agree that it's the role of Parliament to give meaning and definition to section 35, and not the role of the courts?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Roy: What I can say, Mr. Martin, is that the current federal policy is really to try to find a practical solution to the issue of the inherent right to self-government. The subject you mentioned is part of the discussions the minister has from time to time with the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It is a subject that is discussed by the various political leaders.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Before giving the floor to Mr. Dromisky and Mr. Harvey, I would like to make a brief comment.

Mr. Roy, yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Paul Martin, said that he supports the idea of abolishing the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs once he has entered into a series of agreements with various aboriginal people. For my part, for years now I have been advocating that we close the offices of the Department of Indian Affairs and transfer the equivalent amounts directly to the aboriginal and Inuit communities of Canada.

How many years will the next rounds of negotiations last?

Mr. Michel Roy: If I had the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, I would be a clairvoyant. There is no doubt that when we negotiate self-government agreements with the first nations people, the idea is that eventually, when we have self-governing aboriginal communities, the department's mandate will be changed significantly. It could disappear, there may be something else in its place, but I could not tell you how many years this might take.

The Chair: Could we adopt the approach used by some mining and forestry companies, namely have two shifts: a day shift and a night shift, to speed up the self-government process?

Mr. Michel Roy: We have to remember that while we may be able to have a night shift and a day shift on the federal side, our partners must also be able to do the same.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

You have three minutes each, Mr. Dromisky and Mr. Harvey.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Because of the time factor, I'll be very quick.

With 72 negotiating tables in operation at the present time, there's some explanation that I think should be demanded for the viewing public pertaining to a statement you have in your document here. You're talking about these communities negotiating, and that they “must not only define their government structure which reflects their values and culture but also in many cases create a regional or provincial government...”.

We know what a province is. Now, in the context of your document here, and what's going on at the negotiating tables, what does that really mean? They have a choice there—regional or provincial. Can you give us any indication of the direction where the majority are going? Which of the choices have they made?

Ms. Maureen McPhee: Perhaps it wasn't well worded, but what we were referring to there is a province-wide aboriginal government, which is being negotiated in Saskatchewan, for example. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is looking at an agreement setting up a government in Saskatchewan that would be able to pass laws applying to first nations throughout the territory. They're taking an incremental approach, so they've just starting looking at education and child and family services.

So rather than having a whole range of different laws on education in Saskatchewan, the concept is that you would have one drafted jointly by all first nations and applying to all first nations. Manitoba is also looking possibly at an approach like that.

As for the concept of a regional government, in many areas, for example, there are tribal councils in existence that provide programs and services to their member first nations. Some of the first nations we're negotiating with are exploring the notion that the tribal council would evolve to become a regional level of aboriginal government. So the same thing would occur. There could be one law on education that applies to that region.

So there is a range of options that is being looked at. In some instances, though, we are also negotiating with individual first nation governments on their land.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Great.

Do I still have a minute? Oh, a few seconds. Then I'll leave that point.

You're projecting that this whole process will take at least ten years. If we increase the staff--from the government side, I'm talking--would that eliminate some of the time factor? Would it decrease the number of years that would be required for this whole negotiating process? We're talking about 72 tables right now, and more in the years to come. Are we training anyone to take the positions of people who will be leaving, for instance, or retiring from the government side of the negotiating table?

Can you answer those questions?

Ms. Maureen McPhee: I think at the moment the resources we have available are sufficient to deal with the negotiations we are actively involved in now, but if we receive applications for more tables, yes, more resources would certainly be helpful. However, one has to keep in mind that it takes a fair length of time to resolve these. We're making a fundamental change in the relationship between the first nation people and other governments. At the moment, under the Indian Act, first nations have to answer to the Minister of Indian Affairs. We're changing that relationship so that they will take control of their own affairs. However, they are also assuming risks and liabilities in doing that. That's a major decision for them to take.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Maureen McPhee: As well, negotiating jurisdictions is complex.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Harvey, you have three minutes. This will be the last question.

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak with you, Ms. McPhee and Mr. Roy.

I'm not up-to-date on all the negotiations taking place throughout the country, Mr. Roy, but in my region, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-North Shore, in recent years, there were negotiations and the signing of the Common Approach by the Innu communities, the Quebec government and the federal government. As far as I am concerned, at the very least, the objective of these agreements should be to bring together the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. In my region, they rather helped increase the mutual prejudice of both aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I always found that deplorable.

I would like to know whether, over the many years of the negotiation, you felt that our federal department did not foster a dialogue between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities that would help achieve an agreement acceptable to both.

So that is a situation I find deplorable. In this regard, has the federal government played a greater role in its negotiations with the other provinces than in Quebec? For our part, we are seeking agreements that will bring us closer together, not push us further apart.

Mr. Michel Roy: The agreements and negotiations with the Innu in Quebec involved three parties. In that context, it was up to the three parties to consult their partners and neighbours. I think that in this case, the provincial and federal governments as well as the Innu learned a lesson about the information that should be provided to citizens.

Normally, we do not have to deal with this type of problem. In this case, the negotiations lasted for years. They involved three partners and lasted for a very long time and were very difficult. In future, we will pay particular attention to information dissemination.

Hon. André Harvey: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

How much importance do you attach to the new procedures put in place by the minister? I'm referring to the advisory committee and to the special advisor, whose job will be to support our chief negotiator and to act as a facilitator.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Michel Roy: In this context, Minister Michell's decision to establish this consultative committee to support our negotiator is a guarantee of success, in my view. I fully support this decision. We will definitely implement it and ensure that the information is distributed to the people living in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore region.

Hon. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Roy and Ms. McPhee. We have very little time to spend on self-government today. We will deal with it at another time. We will have to set aside a full meeting for that. Keep your documents ready and bring them up to date so that we can come back to this and deal with self-government as soon as possible. We will suspend the meeting for one minute.

¿ (0945)

¿ (0948)

The Chair: We will now begin the second part of our meeting, which will end at 11:00 a.m. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will now proceed with our study on housing.

We have some very important witnesses with us today. They are Mr. Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations; Ms. Judy Whiteduck, Director of Economic Development, is absent because of an emergency situation. Also with us from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is Ms. Joan Atkinson, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs, Mr. Gilles Rochon, Director General, Infrastructure and Housing; from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Mr. Paul Kaludjak, President; Kowesa Etitiq, Policy Analyst. Also with us today is Chief Lance Haymond, from the Assembly of First Nations.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Fontaine, you have a statement.

Mr. Phil Fontaine (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Committee members, thank you for the invitation.

I want to introduce to you my colleagues, Chief Lance Haymond from the Quebec region and Chief Don Jones from Treaty 3 territory in Ontario.

I will present some of the same details I spoke about yesterday at the Prime Minister's aboriginal round table. We'll also offer you an overview of our work, which is literally in progress as we speak.

As you know, the Assembly of First Nations is the national political representative voice for First Nations governments and their citizens in Canada, on reserve and in urban and rural areas. Every chief in Canada is entitled to be a member of the Assembly. The national chief is elected by the chiefs in Canada. The function of the Assembly of First Nations is to serve as a national delegated forum for determining and harmonizing effective collective and cooperative measures on any subject the first nations delegate for review, study, response, or action, and to advance the aspirations of our people.

The strategic direction of the Assembly of First Nations is captured in three themes: recognizing and implementing first nation government; securing the place of first nations in Canada and the world; and strengthening first nation communities.

To advance the third theme, we have the “Strategic Objectives on Housing” document. It is simply to address the critical shortage and deplorable conditions, designing new sustainable first nations housing systems and a first nations housing authority. In the invitation extended to our office and the discussion that ensued it was suggested that an emphasis on the directions and steps we plan to take would be of interest to the members here this morning, as opposed to a recounting of details of the crisis situation. So what I will speak to is housing as a central priority for our communities.

We see housing as a critical link to education, health, economic development, and employment. Poor housing translates to a poor start in life for the growing younger generation of first nation citizens. First nation housing has reached crisis proportions. According to the April 2003 Auditor General's report, there is a shortage of 8,500 units across the country. Internal Indian Affairs figures suggest that there is a shortage of 15,000 units. Moreover, a recent publication from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador states that there is a shortage of 8,700 units in Quebec and Labrador alone, and Chief Haymond will speak to that matter. Other first nations representatives argue that the figure is as high as 35,000 nation-wide. In addition, over 44% of the existing 89,000 homes require renovations, according to the Auditor General. Again, this number is considered low by many first nations.

Given the current rate of construction and the growing population of first nation communities, this problem will continue to grow. We must meet the challenge of creating new approaches to sustainable housing. Transformative change in first nations housing is needed. It is obvious that the current approach has failed. Our communities articulate a vision that shifts the focus to a sustainable continuum of first nation systems of housing to respond to the need for social housing, but also to create opportunities for home ownership, employment, and economic development. To achieve this shift, first nation governments must be effectively and meaningfully engaged at the local, regional, and national level.

¿ (0950)

Our organization proposes to work with the federal government to address immediate needs, including building additional housing and addressing our renovation requirements, while at the same time working to develop long-term sustainability of our housing on reserve. Strategic investments are required now to relieve the crisis and to begin the shift toward new sustainable first nations housing systems.

Steps that can be taken to meet these goals include addressing the current lack of coordination by establishing more effective coordination processes between first nations, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Indian Affairs; consideration of first nation institutional development to support first nation policy development on housing, to promote public education within first nations on home ownership, to generate options resulting in incentives and opportunities for home ownership, and to deliver federal programs in a seamless way that is accountable to first nations; building on the success of some communities by ensuring support for comprehensive community planning; encouraging partnerships among our communities to create purchasing power; developing and sharing models that improve access to financing, such as revolving loan funds and public and private partnerships; providing access to the Canada Infrastructure Program to build housing and community and economic development infrastructure; and sharing models that create first nation development companies or other institutions that build houses and create revenue and employment within our communities.

First nations have been informed that without a plan, there will be no new investments towards our housing needs, and the throne speech and the federal budget seem to appeal to the same flow of thought. Please allow me to confirm that first nations have engaged in a national planning process, and as it turns out, it is a very timely one. Over the course of this week we have invited first nations local and regional experts to discuss elements for a national plan to address housing and infrastructure issues. Our meeting brings together our leaders, technical experts, and administrators. Given the preliminary directions indicated in announcements made yesterday, we consider the planning process to provide a new level of optimism that there will be an openness, so that real change can occur. I will offer you some suggestions, as well as provide you with some detail on what our discussions have brought forward so far.

I've already mentioned a couple of these items: a comprehensive approach that speaks to housing needs, infrastructure, major projects, capital projects, and other community planning initiatives, and a comprehensive approach that encompasses planning, management, financial instruments, human resource needs, administration, capacity issues, economic inputs and outputs, partnership vehicles, and more. We are also working on identifying the framework, timelines, phases of work, and mechanisms needed to allow us to assume full control over housing in our communities. Our efforts will allow us to further develop our own systems of government to support this priority.

I'm going to ask Chief Haymond to finish off our presentation.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Haymond.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond (Eagle Village First Nation - Kipawa): Our efforts will further develop first nation systems of government to support our priority.

Funding levels are being discussed. While some will say the government investment in housing has been substantial and although I fully recognize the importance of the initial investment to the housing portfolio, much, much more needs to be done. The current mode of addressing this portfolio does not answer the true need. I welcome the government's offer to increase support; however, this cannot be the end of our collective movement forward. Our plan will be premised upon an immediate injection of new moneys by the federal government to address the housing backlog faced in our communities.

An innovative approach will be composed of highly coordinated policy options to address the social, market, and other sectoral requirements. We're discussing data- and information-gathering exercises, as was done in the Quebec region, to determine future planning needs and interim measures to ensure that first nations have valid and credible information to support their plans.

When we build a house, we need all the support mechanisms that go with it. This support ranges from answering skill gaps in our labour force and providing technical and vocational skills training, to affordable access to materials, to maintenance, and more. In many of our communities the economic benefit that will be created within the community by gainfully employing our tradespeople will be immediately evident. To help us get to that point of having all the mechanisms, we will identify the capacity requirements and will build tables of discussion and negotiation with all stakeholders. We will make use of models and practices that work in our communities.

Last but not least, we will build a framework around financial instruments that need to be explored further to allow sustainable progress. Overall, after one day of strategic discussions by our experts, we have identified critical areas the AFN must be ready to facilitate. Our discussions will continue for two more days, after which the results will be presented to the AFN executive and the first nation leaders who will be designated to follow this portfolio closely.

We recognize that while a national strategy needs to exist, we must be mindful...and able to respond to regional and local strategic plans through proper funding allocations in partnership with INAC and other government agencies.

It is sure that the complexities of the housing and infrastructure policy area in our communities require multiple efforts to bring about change. The wellness of our homes compounds the social and health dynamic of our communities, and the demographic facts we own need more aggressive initiatives to impact desperate situations. Hopefully, we will find ways to speed up the process and help address the deficiencies in the bureaucracy of the current system.

We very much look forward to coordinating and synthesizing our work as well as working with others to reach our objectives.

And from a regional perspective,

À (1000)

[Translation]

I would like to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak on a subject which is very important for the Quebec region, namely housing.

[English]

As most of you are aware, we have done an extensive identification of the needs in Quebec, and we're in agreement that work must continue for us to change the way the current system has been operating. But there will be more to the meeting than dealing with the long term. The requirement in Quebec is that the crisis situation we are currently living through requires that major investments be made now to deal with the backlog, this with a view that this should facilitate and become a part of a national process that will allow us to meet our needs on a fairly regular basis.

The Chair: Merci.

Thank you, Monsieur Fontaine; thank you, Monsieur Haymond.

Mr. Paul Kaludjak.

Mr. Paul Kaludjak (President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): [Witness speaks in his native language]

I guess we're out of luck for Inuit translation, so we will go in English.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, thank you for taking us on such short notice to present our case this morning. As well, I have staff over there somewhere listening to us this morning. On their behalf and on our behalf, thank you for the time for us to speak to you.

I would like to begin by briefly explaining the organizational operation of Nunavut Tunngavik. NTI is an organization representing Inuit under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The agreement was signed in 1993 between the crown and the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. NTI is not just a non-governmental organization; it is the holder of Inuit rights and obligations under the land claims agreement as well as being the largest landowner in Nunavut next to the federal government.

In this context, the federal government, the territorial government, and NTI are in many ways legally obligated to work together toward making Nunavut work. Article 32 of the land claims agreement states that:

Inuit have the right...to participate in thedevelopment of social and cultural policies, and in the design of social and culturalprograms and services, including...delivery, within the NunavutSettlement Area.

NTI holds the right on behalf of Inuit, and accordingly, NTI views our appearance before this committee as contributing to Canada's meeting this obligation under the land claim.

I'm here today to represent the thousands of aboriginal people in Nunavut Territory who do not have adequate accommodations. I'm here to speak to you on behalf of those living today in crowded and unhealthy conditions; they are 44% of the Inuit in Canada. I think it was noted by Phil Fontaine's committee this morning as well.

Many others, including the Prime Minister himself, have said it's simply not adequate or acceptable to have such conditions in today's Canada. We agree, and we want to be active partners in designing and implementing solutions for the future.

As I have noted, there is a legal obligation to consult and to involve Inuit in developing social programs. It is an obligation we take very seriously both for ourselves and for the federal government. In this vein, I'm here to propose positive housing solutions designed to meet the needs of Nunavut communities. They will also contribute in many ways to economic development in our region; we will produce better returns on major federal investments already being made in health, education, welfare, and culture.

Under article 2 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, we are entitled to benefit from programs available to other aboriginal people. In 1993 the federal minister concluded the negotiations with us, assuring us the federal housing program would continue in the territory.

We had offered to take the responsibility for it, but this was rejected. It is time to move on and take action. I want to speak more about the solutions than the problems today.

However, I do want to take a few minutes to brief you on problems. We have not had many occasions to do this in the past. First, because of the harsh climate typical of our territory, our people must spend considerably more time in their homes than do most other Canadians. Thus, it's all-important to have enough space and healthy indoor living environments. Today the reality is that many Nunavut residents contend with much worse living conditions than do people in the south. The average social housing unit has less than 75 square metres of space, with no basement or attic.

À (1005)

The overall result of our housing condition is poorer health, higher rates of respiratory disease, higher rates of family violence, and higher rates of suicide and depression.

Here are just a few illustrations. Tuberculosis rates are 25 times the Canadian average. We have the highest rate of hospitalization for respiratory tract infections in the world, the highest infant mortality rates, and one of the highest suicide rates in Canada. According to the 2001 census of aboriginal people, Inuit in Nunavut are more than twice as crowded as those aboriginal people living in rural areas. They are four times as crowded as aboriginal dwellers in urban areas, and almost eight times as crowded as average Canadians. Space, insulation, heating, ventilation, and other elements of dwellings are below the standards we have achieved in many other communities. Over 1,350 units--19% of the total--need major repairs according to Statistics Canada, and half of the public housing is over 25 years old.

Mr. Chairman, it should not be a mystery to you why these substandard conditions exist despite significant efforts that we have made elsewhere in Canada. Even in parts of the other northern territories there are functioning housing markets. There are routine ways in which housing is built and kept in reasonable condition. In many communities of Nunavut, if the government does not build the housing and keep it in good condition, then it simply does not happen. There are no markets to speak of there. Forty-six percent of social housing is occupied entirely by Inuit. Another 18%-plus units is staff housing for territorial, federal, and other employees. Only about 35% of these units are privately rented or owned. Many of these are in one community--Iqaluit.

A key factor in many decisions is the high cost of building and maintaining housing in the north. The Nunavut Housing Corporation estimates that it costs $1,750 just to change a broken window--just so you know the cost. It costs $250,000 for a basic new dwelling. Much more local involvement could reduce these costs somewhat, but every nail and every stick of lumber must be shipped in from the south. Whatever the federal government invests in housing, at least 60% will remain in the south or leak back.

In 1993 the federal social housing program for what is now Nunavut territory was terminated. According to Statistics Canada, rental housing production of all kinds from 1991 through 2001 averaged less than 91 units a year, yet there was a documented need for at least 250 units a year. These homes are required to keep up with population growth. They would have continued the trend to improved living conditions begun in the 1970s and 1980s. Throughout most of the 1990s many aboriginal people of Nunavut fell behind instead of getting ahead in the game.

I want to add that not only was the program terminated, but the funding to support ongoing operations of the existing stock is being progressively reduced. By 2037, over $900 million less will be provided to the territorial housing corporation, and that has been made up somehow, beginning this year.

À (1010)

In 2002 the federal government began to recognize the mistake made in 1993 as far as aboriginal housing in the north was concerned. As the Auditor General has pointed out, $3.8 billion has been spent already on reserves over the decade. Another program was delivered to the Inuit of northern Quebec. We were happy these funds were spent on aboriginal housing, but you can understand why we felt, as Jose said yesterday, that we had been cast adrift on an ice floe.

We welcome this change of heart. It has led to renewed hope among our people for sustainable housing solutions. To date, however, federal funds have been provided on a one-off basis. In 2002, and again in 2003, there was money for a combined total of 210 units. Thus, we could catch up on less than one year of lost production in the 1990s. Clearly that's a very good start, but only a start.

From an economic development standpoint, we need a funded 10-year plan for the future. I am talking of a plan to build 300 to 400 units a year in Nunavut and to renovate at least another 200 to 300. We need a firm financial commitment that lets us train people. We need a horizon that lets us make sound buying choices among materials and building systems available in the south. We need a program that let's us save energy, protect the environment, and adapt the best new technologies for conditions in the north.

Housing in the north is a necessity to survive. It is also a means of supporting economic growth. Let me give you a few examples. Many people in the north use their homes as a place to work where they can make traditional crafts and to do world-renowned art. They can prepare country foods. They can log onto the Internet and sell their products online. They can pass on their cultural heritage to their children and develop a unique literature of the north.

Beyond what can be done in good-quality housing itself, there is the tremendous economic development impacts that the home-building industry can have. Here in the south it is a leading edge of growth in a much more complex economy. It is where many people are now investing in the future. In the north, home building and renovation can be a vast training ground for skills and talents readily transferred to other sectors. Carpenters, plumbers, site supervisors, and others can readily move into non-residential construction to support natural resource development. They can also be more readily retained for similar-skilled occupations because they have learned the basics. Similarly, housing helps people move into service occupations such as those in property management, land surveying, purchasing, design, and project management that can be transferred to the wider economy.

We know that Canada is investing in Nunavut today for reasons of social equity, Arctic sovereignty, and legal obligations from the past. I am fully confident that the Canadian investment in Nunavut will be repaid in the future, and with interest. We already have major diamond developments and prospects. We have major petroleum resources. We have huge wind energy potential. We have a population that is increasingly well educated and capable, in my view.

We need a 10-year bridge to that brighter future. Housing is a fundamental building block to form that bridge.

À (1015)

We have been preparing a four-party strategy and plan of action to discuss with federal officials. We have been working on key aspects of this strategy and action plan with the Government of Nunavut for some time. I will briefly outline the Nunavut Tunngavik approach to housing for our people today.

First, we would like action to ensure that the existing stock of housing in Nunavut is being used to best effect. We believe a major program to renovate the existing stock should have direct energy and water saving benefits. These may even pay for a key portion of the work over time. At 37¢ a kilowatt-hour, it's not so hard. With the recent increases here, this is something like seven times the rate in Ottawa. I am told that it's 4.6¢ with a subsidy. That's very low compared to our figures, as you know.

Such renovations will certainly improve occupant health and safety right away by including additions to the stock within the renovation program. Some of the worst overcrowding can also be eliminated more quickly and at a lower cost.

Secondly, we would like to see an end-to-end housing production system for the long term in Nunavut. We would work with northern building experts. It would encourage southern building materials and suppliers. Most of all, we would like to enlist local private sector companies and residents of Nunavut. From this, we believe sustainable solutions will come forward.

Thirdly, we would like to see a concrete effort to build up capacities in the communities and households in Nunavut. They can play a much greater role in providing their own housing solutions and in maintaining their own homes. We need incentives and recognition for those who do it themselves. We need opportunities for people to assume manageable ownership responsibilities if they are willing and able.

Finally, NTI would like to see annual progress reports to ensure that we are getting the best bang for our housing buck. We are already doing broader reports on the state of Inuit culture and society. The second one will be released next week. It includes housing, but we need more specific measures of what is being achieved in housing, education, health, and social stability as a result of this housing investment.

There needs to be an ongoing dialogue with the residents of Nunavut and with Canadians about results. We must also look into the relative economics of different housing methods and different contracting arrangements.

These are the four pillars of the proposed housing strategy and long-term housing action plan: number one, renovating the existing Nunavut stock to save Inuit people's health and resources through new technologies; number two, creating a sustainable new home building industry as a valued part of the economy; number three, increasing community and individual capacities to take charge of our own housing; number four, reporting and consulting on results and benefits to ordinary citizens of Nunavut and to Canadian taxpayers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the time and attention you have given us to express our needs for housing in Nunavut. Thank you very much.

À (1020)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kaludjak. I would be remiss if I did not point out that the reason you are here this morning is that your member of Parliament, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, without really exerting any pressure, has been recommending this for two days. There were a number of phone calls made. She's the one who asked that you come here. We are proud that you are here to testify before the committee.

I've given people time to familiarize themselves with the two presentations in full. Normally, we give witnesses 10 or 12 minutes, but this morning I made an exception to the rule.

I would like to give the officials the floor for five minutes, but I would like to make one important point to our representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have been doing studies on housing for a number of years now, and it is always the same story. Today, we have a number a witnesses before you, and I want to tell you that I am going to be very strict.

At the moment, we have three generations living together in the same house during the winter. Last week, I saw five children sleeping in the same bedroom. In this day and age, five children are sleeping in the same bedroom in Nunavik. Four of them were not going to school because two were ill and passed on what they had to the other children in the house. There are social problems at the moment. We see them in the large cities as well, not just among First Nations people and the Inuit and Metis.

However, I would like the departmental officials not to report today that the money was spent a few years ago. What we want to know is what action will be taken in the future. As you know, without proper housing, there is no education or economic development. As it does for everyone else, this costs money in the north, among Inuit, and first nations people. I'm telling you to pass this on to your superiors. I am pleased you're here this morning, but please tell us what will be done in the future. Thank you.

You have the floor, Ms. Atkinson and Mr. Rochon.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Merci, Monsieur le Président.

I will be brief in my remarks, so that we can get to questions.

[Translation]

I would like to thank the committee members for providing me with this opportunity to address the pressing issue of on-reserve housing.

[English]

I think we all recognize, as has been stated by our other witnesses this morning and you, that there is a relationship between decent housing and the socio-economic well-being of a community.

The current housing policy for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was established in 1996, and it is designed to emphasize community control and accountability and program flexibility, encourage shared responsibility, and increase sector investment, as well as to improve the linkages with training, job creation, and business development our witnesses have talked about this morning.

À (1025)

[Translation]

Over the last five years, INAC has contributed in excess of $850 million toward on-reserve. housing. The annual budget is close to $138 million. However, it has to be recognized that the overall on-reserve housing stock remains well below Canadian averages, with many First Nations communities still facing severe housing shortages and significant overcrowding.

[English]

And you've heard ample evidence of that today from our witnesses.

How serious is the problem? Our current figures show that there are only slightly more than 93,000 on-reserve houses to accommodate more than 113,000 households. This is a significant shortage. In addition, new housing starts are not keeping pace with new household formations. Since 1996 approximately 2,600 new houses are being constructed annually, but it is estimated that new household formation will average about 4,400 annually over the next few years.

It's important to note that housing is a shared responsibility, and first nations do attempt to identify and obtain a portion of the necessary funding. Departmental funding was never intended to cover the full cost of construction. To obtain the flexibility offered under the 1996 on-reserve housing policy, first nations prepare and implement comprehensive community-based housing strategies incorporating a range of elements consistent with the policy goals, first, to protect and extend the life of existing houses through appropriate housing maintenance programs, introduction of insurance regimes and renovations programs, and ensuring that housing meets minimum national standards; second, to construct quality affordable new housing designed to respond to the variety of housing needs within the community.

[Translation]

Third, we must promote individual pride and shared responsibility, including home ownership, and increase private market investment. We must also link housing activities to training, job creation and business development and thereby create new opportunities for socio-economic development.

[English]

In March 2004 the department and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation filed a joint action plan with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to address the committee's recommendation in its 20th report to the House of Commons. This report examined the April 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada entitled Federal Government Support to First Nations--Housing on Reserves, which looked at the delivery of on-reserve programmings by INAC and CMHC.

So what are we doing? Both the Government of Canada and first nations leaders continue to place a priority on improving housing conditions in first nations communities. What we envision is a two-pronged approach under which we place an emphasis on social housing while at the same time encouraging more private ownership. And I believe this approach reflects the current thinking of the Assembly of First Nations, as articulated by the national chief this morning.

Minister Mitchell and the national chief have both spoken to the need for new solutions that make sense for individual communities, that look at the need for social housing in those communities where employment opportunities are limited, and that also try to encourage and provide incentives for private ownership.

We are committed to working with the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal leaders, with our partners, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to identify solutions, working not only with governments and first nations and other aboriginal leaders but with the private sector as well.

We are committed to exploring options that will focus on alternate forms of tenure on reserve and increase private sector financing. We have already funded several initiatives of this type in those communities that have been able to take advantage of those opportunities.

I thank the committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak, and I would welcome any questions.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Atkinson. Before giving the floor to Mr. Strahl, I would like to start by asking you a question. You have spoken about reserves and the first nations people, but the Inuit are with us today. What can you tell us about the Inuit, Nunavut, Nunavik and Labrador? You do not refer to the Inuit, only to reserves.

À (1030)

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's because our mandate and responsibility in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is to support housing on reserve, for first nations on reserve. In the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we currently do not have a mandate and responsibility within our programs for housing in the territories. The funding for housing in the territories is provided through the territorial fiscal transfers that are determined by the Department of Finance. CMHC--the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation--does have responsibility at the federal level for housing more generally, but in INAC in fact our housing program is limited to first nations on reserve.

[Translation]

The Chair: Could you write me a letter to tell me who at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation looks after housing for Inuit in Canada? I would like to know that.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I cannot speak for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I really wouldn't be able to tell you today exactly what their responsibilities are vis-à-vis housing for the Inuit, but I can tell you that our programming in INAC is for first nations on reserve.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

I apologize, Mr. Strahl. The meeting is scheduled to go until 11 a.m., but I wanted to hear what our witnesses had to say today, especially since they have come from so far away.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here this morning. I'm sure after your busy day yesterday--I assume you were all involved yesterday--this timing worked out well for you to come to this committee, as well.

Let me start by saying that I think everyone shares the concern about the conditions of housing for aboriginal and Inuit people. It is just an abysmal thing. I do appreciate what has been said already, that we don't want to focus on the past and we want to look at creative new solutions, but you just have to deal with the reality too, and the reality is not very nice. It's not only just the housing, but the stuff that goes with the housing: clean water, the rest of it. There have been enough reports on the poor standards, and we all share the concerns.

What will we do for the solutions is not yet clear to me. I just have a couple of observations, and I invite your comments on them. One is that in my own area, in the Stó:lõ Nation--there are probably, I don't know what, around 20 reserves in my area--it seems like the people on those reserves who have certificates of possession, which is not like fee simple, but it does give a degree of control of an individual or a family over a geographic part of a reserve, seem to do better on their housing and the maintenance and the standards than those who are stuck with the general management of housing. In other words, the people who have more direct control of their housing opportunities and more of a hands-on approach seem to have a better standard of housing. They get better houses, and they maintain them better. I don't know whether it's pride of ownership or what it is, but somehow it seems to work better.

I see from INAC's point of view, they suggest, on your last page here, that every part of it has an element of private ownership. In one paragraph here you have private ownership, promoting home ownership, alternate forms of tenure, and so on.

Is there a consensus or a move towards the idea of allowing people to have more? I don't know, you can't really have fee simple on a reserve, but it does seem that when people have more of this private ownership they seem to do better. Is there a move that way, do you think? I don't know who to address this too. It's a big group.

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Kaludjak.

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Yes, thank you.

As we expressed, there are many difficulties that we face in the housing program itself. As you heard from INAC, they don't even have the mandate to look after the Nunavut side. So the protocol here is the housing corporation, CMHC.

On that note, we have seen some renovations, but those are to the same existing tiny little shacks, let me call them that. They keep the same sizes. Here we have the population growing and we're renovating the same old units, which are tiny.

What we'd like to express is, yes, renovate, but as well expand it so you can compensate for the growing population in the communities. A cost-efficient way of renovating it and making it more healthy for the population of Inuit in Nunavut, that's what we're looking for. Some additional solutions we talked about would be to have an ongoing upgrade of houses, and to make them larger, so that we can help alleviate the crisis of housing in Nunavut in that way, while also making new units to offset this crisis situation we're facing today in our communities.

À (1035)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I understand in your case you're talking about not only renovating and maintaining the current housing, but expanding the size and so on. But my question, specifically, was on the private ownership side.

As I understand it, there's social housing, which is different. Social housing is people who can't afford a house, never will afford a house, or at least not soon. One of the alternatives that's mentioned in the INAC paper here is the private ownership side and alternate forms of tenure and so on. I was wondering what form that might take, because it is normal for wealth creation and for stability in many societies.

Of course, the ownership of property and the right to enjoy it, and so on, with the assurance you can continue to enjoy it, is key to people maintaining it. I'm wondering what types of alternate forms of tenure and so on are being considered. It does seem that this might be part of the answer, because it's certainly emphasized in INAC's paper here. I wonder if anybody has a comment on that.

Chief Lance Haymond: I can comment, I guess.

With regard to home ownership, you're right, the pride that is instilled when you own your home does relate to improved maintenance. But the reality of the CP system is that it is the only mechanism that is currently available to first nation members to acquire the land their house is on. Technically, though, it's a document such that the land will always be part of the overall community. The CP system is essentially what INAC has right now to recognize the land tenure situation.

In terms of other options, I'm not aware that there really are any. I think that really needs to be discussed further.

Speaking directly to our situation in Quebec, we have the combination of home ownership and social housing, but social housing still does not constitute...or only for people who cannot afford. For us, social housing is put in the context of building homes where, even if the person is on social assistance, they are still in the position to pay an amount that is representative of their income. We maintain that to a level of around 20% to 25%. So at the end of a specific timeframe--and 20 years is probably the best example of a normal mortgage--even social housing becomes private ownership to the individual we've put in those homes. It's just a whole different concept.

That's my particular reality, but in general, most first nations, depending on their economic situation and their ability to have jobs and income, will determine the level of social housing required. Social housing is required for people who can't afford otherwise.

So a number of elements have to take into consideration an individual community's reality.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Atkinson would like to comment.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman--

[Translation]

The Chair: Fine.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: --since part of her point was that she could provide a list of the initiatives, then perhaps she could do so. That may address some of those concerns. I'd like to know what those initiatives were.

The Chair: Good point.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'd be very happy to provide a list of some of the communities that are doing innovative things with land tenure. The certificate of possession is an example. Some communities are designating land for residential leasing under section 53 of the Indian Act. It's not a simple process, but it can be done. Certificates of possession and leasing of land, together with a program called “ministerial loan guarantees”, can assist some communities in terms of accessing financing, which is another important component of private ownership.

However, I think it's important to emphasize that not all communities are able to benefit from those provisions. It is awkward, I would have to say, under the current Indian Act even for certificates of possession and residential leasing of land. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of those communities that, despite the barriers and the obstacles, have managed to do some of these innovative things and improve their housing and the maintenance of their housing as a result.

À (1040)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Picard.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by making a comment.

In 1993, when I first arrived here, I was on the Health Committee as the official opposition critic. We did a one-year study on the health and welfare of aboriginal children and we produced a report in which we talked about poverty, of course, because it is linked directly to health. When we spoke about poverty, we also mentioned housing. I realize that this is my 11^th year as a member of Parliament and nothing has changed.

I would like to say to the officials that I'm sorry, I know you probably do a fine job, but I could show you the same speeches and presentations we heard when I was a member of the Health Committee. So I'm very sorry, but I think that nothing has changed.

I do not know whether you saw a report on television, on Radio-Canada, which talked about the aboriginal housing situation in places such as Barrière Lake, where the houses are in such poor condition that the floors are rotten. Rats were coming in everywhere and families had to put their children in hammocks to keep them away from the rats.

There was also mention of the Weymontachie aboriginal people—and I apologize if I am mispronouncing this word—a community with a chronic mould problem in some 113 houses. As you know, there are also major problems in the Abitibi region. So I would like to know from the officials whether they have an emergency plan to deal with situations of this type.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, I would say that one of the things that has changed recently is the fact that we are engaging in a partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. We are committed to working with the AFN to identify the areas where we can make progress in as quick a time as possible.

In terms of dealing with emergency situations such as you've described, we do provide emergency housing funds, when those funds are available to us, to the regional offices, which they can use to deal with some of the priority situations in their region.

Our annual budget, as I said, is around $128 million a year, which we use to support housing in first nations communities, but as funds are available on an annual basis for emergency situations, those additional funds are provided to regional offices so that they can deal with those issues as best they can.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: If you could see this report, you would see how catastrophic the situation is. What must be done to declare a state of emergency? Are there people in charge of monitoring such situations to enable you to free up funds to help out these communities?

In addition, I would like to know how much it costs the government to have a house built.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We don't provide direct subsidies for the construction of housing. Our housing budget that is provided to communities is, as I indicated, a budget that the community can spend in whatever way they feel they need to spend it on housing, whether that's construction of new housing, whether that's maintenance of existing housing, or whether that's combining that money with other sources of funding to be able to build or construct housing.

We don't provide a subsidy per se, and we don't provide a certain amount of money per se for construction of new homes. The amount of money that is allocated to each first nation community is determined by the regional office and those communities, but it is largely based on population, on the number of people living in the community.

À (1045)

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: So you do not do any assessments? Even if you think a community might need 20 housing units, you must do some sort of evaluation before sending the community a cheque.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There is a negotiation of those funding agreements every year between the regional office and each first nation community. Obviously, for the communities, how they allocate the money they receive from INAC will be determined in large part by their specific housing needs. But we don't, as I said, provide funding to communities on the basis specifically of housing shortages, except in the case where we have funds available for emergency housing. We can top up funding that's been provided at the beginning of the year, and then regions will identify those priority communities where the emergency is the greatest and provide additional moneys to top up, when those moneys are available.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Fontaine.

[English]

Mr. Phil Fontaine: I wonder if I could respond to your question.

We all agree that this is a complex issue. It seems that all of the concerted efforts that have been directed to improving the situation have resulted in housing becoming the crisis situation that has been described by the Auditor General. She spoke clearly about the failure to produce better results. All of our efforts have failed, and of course the failure is on the shoulders of first nations people.

It's clear there are no easy and simple solutions. One may argue that if we go to home ownership, that's the answer. Someone might suggest that a greater effort ought to be directed to social housing. But there isn't one single answer. We can't wave a magic wand and have everything be better. But there are, in our view, different and better ways of dealing with this issue, to carry forward more effectively, with a better product. We believe there are answers.

First of all, we're going to need a better picture, a more complete picture, of the situation. We don't possess that right now--not the department, not first nations, not parliamentarians such as you sitting around the table here. To determine what we've achieved and what we need to establish, we need better information on on-reserve housing costs, on program performance. We don't have that. We don't possess that.

So we need all of that to support the Department of Indian Affairs, CMHC, and first nations governments in making informed decisions about how the moneys ought to be allocated, and most important to you, to strengthen accountability to Parliament and to our communities.

Our proposition is really quite simple. When I say “our”, I mean first nations and the Assembly of First Nations, which speaks for first nations citizens. We argue that Indian Affairs and CMHC have to get out of the business of Indian housing, and in its place, first nations governments have to take control.

Our governments have to set the standards, develop the codes, deliver on a blended housing strategy that incorporates both social housing and market force housing, a strategy that would incorporate training, because we need to train our people so that we actually build better homes and meet standards that are acceptable to all Canadians, including first nations people, a strategy that is based on wealth creation and business development and has, as its underpinning, economic development. We don't have that now in a coordinated way.

We argue that we need better coordination. We need a more focused housing strategy. We need an approach that incorporates all of the many advantages that exist that are not being utilized. For example, we have communities now where there are major concentrations of people--for example, in northeastern Manitoba: four communities, 10,000 people. Every bit of housing material that is needed to build homes there is purchased in Winnipeg. And where do the companies in Winnipeg buy their products? Somewhere else. So there's a markup at every step of the way, and that ultimately becomes a burden on the first nations communities.

À (1050)

And look around these communities, the four I'm referring to. They have the best timber anywhere. Are we taking advantage of that resource? We're not--absolutely not.

What we need to do at some point is to engage the private sector so we can create the kinds of partnerships that will deliver what is actually needed in our communities--quality housing. Then we can deal with all of the other problems that were alluded to, and have better health, a more conducive atmosphere for learning for our young people, wealth creation, appropriate training, which can be exercised in a responsible way by first nations governments so that we can be accountable to the taxpayer and to our communities. That isn't the situation now.

We need all of you people who believe that we can do better to join with us, to convince those people who make the decisions now so that we make the right decisions. I can't speak clearly and loudly enough about the urgency of this matter. We need to do better, and we need to do better now.

[Translation]

The Chair: I would like to thank you and Ms. Picard.

I would like to tell you, Mr. Fontaine, that I really admire your approach. I think that in future, we should all move in this direction if we want to achieve results.

The meeting is scheduled to end at 11 a.m., but I would like to tell you that even if we finish at 11:30 a.m. or 11:45 a.m., I will be patient. I am not in a hurry, because this issue is too important. I would like to tell you that a number of members want to speak. We will go later than 11 a.m. or 11:30 a.m. As I said, I am not in a hurry. The housing crisis is too important, and I want the people of Canada to know that. Everything that is purchased for northern villages or reserves in Canada is purchased in southern Canada, and non-aboriginals are making money from our first nations people, and our Inuit, who want to be involved in the economy.

It is your turn, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Matna. Tunngafugitis. Welcome to all of you this morning.

I apologize first of all for being late this morning. I had another committee where I had to be part of a quorum, my Canadian heritage committee.

Since I've been here I've been asked frequently about what I would pick if I had to choose one priority item that I feel is an important file to concentrate on, and without hesitation I would say housing. Even though it's a multi-jurisdictional issue, and yes we do get told many times that it's the jurisdiction of the territorial government, I'm convinced that all the other great initiatives that we have on housing, social growth, and work productivity are all affected by our lack of proper housing for the people.

All the great investments that we make on that front do get affected as far as results are concerned by the housing file. We have been forced to take some of our infrastructure dollars through the other projects of the federal government and put it into housing. As we announced last August in Rankin Inlet, the money that the territorial government was entitled to in infrastructure dollars had to be concentrated on housing because they made it their number one priority instead of roads, instead of water and sewage, instead of other infrastructure needs.

You end up having to choose over other projects.

I speak to people in home ownership units who are now the working poor because they can't keep up with the cost of living and the cost of operating their houses. So some of them have to go back to social housing, especially when they lose a spouse who was the working member of that family.

We have to deal with all these different problems that are linked with everyone.

You were talking, Phil, about what you want to do. I feel we have that already in Nunavut, but we don't have the resources to go with it.

To go back to my question, I look at the four pillars of your housing strategy, Paul, and I keep thinking that our number one initiative now should be for social housing just to get caught up, as you say, with the housing needs in the north. But I'm not sure where that fits into your four pillars there. I just want the Government of Canada to commit to making more social housing units, because the other markets, yes, are good for us, but right now our number one immediate need is social housing.

I used to work in the housing association in my community, and the amount of money we needed just to do the upkeep of those units...it was also very difficult.

I make the number one priority for me in my job social housing for the communities in the territory of Nunavut.

À (1055)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Phil Fontaine has just told me that he has a very tight schedule and will have to leave in two minutes.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Fontaine.

[English]

Mr. Phil Fontaine: Actually it's a housing meeting.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your statement.

Mr. Phil Fontaine: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kaludjak.

[English]

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Okay, thank you.

As the gentleman did ask us this morning about private home ownership in Nunavut and to respond to Nancy's comments, I'll say that we have that to some degree. It's due to the high cost of living in Nunavut that it's very difficult to operate and maintain a private home, as you stated. It's difficult to help that industry grow because of the level of unemployment up there. Upkeep on a private home is really difficult.

As I did indicate in my comments, this is one little example: we pay 37¢ per kilowatt-hour for our power. Here you pay, with a subsidy, 4.6¢, and that's a big gap. That happens to all the other costs associated with maintaining a house in Nunavut, such as for lumber and other materials. It's difficult up in northern communities to pick up a doorknob if yours broke in the house, for example. Those are the difficulties we face.

In terms of the new initiative we're going to take, as Madam said, it's been 11 years and the same speeches are being noted and the same words are being shared with this committee. I have high hopes when Nancy tells me there's going to be a government initiative to put public housing in the community and tells us what they're going to do on housing. I wholeheartedly support this committee, and I hope you can take the next step and tell the government they need to put housing as a priority for Nunavut as well as for other aboriginal groups.

Specifically for Nunavut, we have a crisis situation we're facing. Help us out; that's all we ask. Public housing is going to be one of our priorities in our land claims, and this is to let you know we're going to work and find innovative ways to make sure we get better housing in Nunavut in the next little while.

I'll turn it over to Kowesa for some of the information Nancy wanted to know.

Thank you.

Á (1100)

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq (Policy Analyst, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated): Thank you.

You were asking about the four pillars of our proposed housing strategy. One and two are about social housing. Number one is basically to add a bedroom to overcrowded homes in the first year just to alleviate the worst overcrowding. Number two is to actually go out and build the houses.

I just wanted to make a comment about what Joan said, that INAC does not fund Inuit housing. It's really disheartening to hear that. We're excluded from another program first nations have access to, although we have an article under the land claims agreement, article 2, that states just because we signed a land claims agreement, it doesn't mean we're excluded from other programs other aboriginals have access to.

She said that the housing funding is done through the territorial financing formula, and I'd just like to give you a little bit of information on that. The second phase of the affordable housing agreement was announced about three weeks ago, and it was for $340 million. They do it on a per capita formula, and Nunavut's share is $290,000. That's enough for one house, so I think it should be called the “affordable house agreement” when it comes to Nunavut.

You know, the Prime Minister made statements about Inuit-specific programming at DIAND, but I still haven't heard of any changes in attitude or heard any positive response in terms of what Inuit need in terms of programs and services other aboriginals have access to. We're behind 300,000 units. We signed the land claims agreement in 1993, and at the time we were negotiating, the Inuit wanted control of housing. We wanted to do it ourselves, but the federal government said no, housing was their responsibility. About six months later the federal government got out of the social housing game, so we were literally left out in the cold.

It's been 11 years since any real new social housing was constructed, except for last year, when, as Nancy mentioned, Infrastructure Canada came in with $20 million and there was a matching $20 million from the Government of Nunavut. That $40 million only gives us 160 units. We have a backlog of 3,000, and our needs grow by 250 a year, so we're not even keeping up with what we needed last year.

I hope that answers your question, Nancy.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will move to the second round, but first, Mr. Lance Haymond would like to table a document.

You're asking to do that?

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would very much like to put forward a document. As the national chief has said, a major requirement that will have to be met by the Assembly of First Nations is to get a portrait of the housing situation across the country to be better able to articulate plans to deal with the crisis.

I want to inform the committee that Quebec has undertaken this exercise for the last three years. We've updated the data to include mould contamination, and subsequently we will be doing another exercise to add to this document the impact of the contamination of insulation of vermiculite.

I would very much like to put this document forward officially, as it represents the global needs of all first nations in Quebec and Labrador, including new housing construction, renovation, and the overall costs associated with what is required in Quebec.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

The Chair: Do committee members agree to receive this document? Yes, we agree.

I would like to make a special request. I have looked at your file and it is very well done, with colours, and so on. Could we get 16 more copies of it?

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: Yes. It's not a problem. I have some with me, and I'll make arrangements to have the remainder sent. To whose attention should we send them, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Please send them to the clerk.

We will now go to the second round. Questioners will have three minutes each.

Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A question that has been raised at this committee before, in times past, by some aboriginal women has been on their concern about the rights of aboriginal women to access housing on reserves, especially in the case of divorce or separation.

Like anyone else, if someone grows up in a home, whatever that home might be like, it might be their only home, and in the case of divorce or separation, in some cases aboriginal women have argued that when the divorce comes, they're shown the door and they have no recourse. In some communities, they just don't have recourse to keep the family home, because it's not really owned by the family, right?

What encouragement or what advice would you give the committee or aboriginal women who have expressed that concern? Is it being addressed in self-government agreements? Is it a diminishing concern, do you think, or is it still out there? Because we hear it fairly often. Aboriginal women say that on some reserves, depending on chief and council, when a divorce happens--it's always unfortunate in any society, but it happens, separation happens--the woman and her children sometimes are left without a home to live in.

What advice or counsel would you give on that?

Chief Lance Haymond: For me it is a very important issue. It has been raised on a number of occasions. While we have been trying to address the issue, it keeps coming back to the forefront. The whole issue of matrimonial property for women is an important one.

I cannot speak for other first nation communities or the region as a whole, but I know we have taken steps to develop policies that clearly will articulate, when there is a marriage breakup, how the distribution of property will occur.

So if you're asking me how it can be done, I don't think it is something that can be forced on first nations, because different communities and different nations determine their own approach. But as a community chief, having lived in those situations, I think it's important that they have equal access to housing and are treated fairly when there is a dissolution of marriage.

We have gone so far as to develop a comprehensive policy as to what will occur, depending on the situation. I cannot speak on behalf of other first nations, but it's something first nations should focus on, because it is an important issue. The rights of the women are important, because normally in a marriage breakup they end up being the caretakers of the children.

So our policy is based around equal access and equal sharing of matrimonial property that has been acquired during the marriage, and ultimately, ownership of the home is determined by who takes final care of the children that are a result of the marriage.

First nations have to be in the forefront of developing the policies to address those issues.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Monsieur Telegdi.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much--

[Translation]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Kaludjak.

Thank you for being so patient, Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: In response to your comments about what happens in that situation, first I wanted to comment that when I talked about the climate in Nunavut, in the winter our temperatures drop to minus 50. You're not going to put people out there in minus 50 without housing.

At times we do build igloos, for that matter, but for protection for when that happens in Nunavut, we have wholeheartedly supported shelters. We ask the communities to create proper housing and shelters in a case such as the one you were explaining, if the family breaks up or something happens and there is no more housing for the family. We ask our government and the interest groups to build units people can go to for the short term--shelters--and make them available in the community if something should not work out for a family in the community.

That's one step we are taking in Nunavut to safeguard against that kind of problem.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Chief Haymond, I want to commend you on your study. I think that really is part of the solution. There's no question that housing is a key ingredient to the whole socio-economic evolution. In Waterloo we have the Canadian head office for Habitat for Humanity. It's amazing what housing does to help on all fronts.

You all talked about the economic engine. You talked about the training and education involved. If you look at the North American economy, the health of the North American economy to a large extent is driven by the housing industry. It seems all this goes on and it's not happening in some of our most economically depressed areas.

I'm really pleased with what National Chief Fontaine has said, that we are looking at a new model, that we have to have a new model because this model hasn't worked. It will solve so many of the problems. And I agree with my colleague Nancy very strongly that this issue deals with all sorts of other issues, be it suicide, be it health, be it education--economic well-being.

I think this committee will be looking for something to come very soon from the government. Minister Mitchell made a commitment the other day that if he doesn't have some kind of plan within six weeks, he will be very disappointed.

The only question I have for you is how long would it take to get the capacity up to have an aboriginal-driven housing policy?

Chief Lance Haymond: Well, as the national chief has made you aware, there is an ongoing national think-tank that has brought a number of experts from across the country and all regions. That meeting is ongoing.

As a consequence of this meeting, they are developing the preliminary stages of the plan, which has to be brought back to the confederacy meeting that will be held in the second or third week of May in Saskatoon. At that point the preliminary aspects of a national housing authority will be presented to the chiefs in confederacy. The national chief will secure the support from that particular forum and then be in a position to proceed with negotiations with the department for the development of capacity building, resourcing, and all of the related items that are required to become a more integral part and partner of this new housing regime.

In terms of timeframe, realistically it's not something that's going to occur quickly. The minister's comments about results in six weeks I think reflect his understanding that the preliminary plan will have to be ratified by the chiefs in assembly. At that point they will proceed, from my understanding, fairly quickly to developing the overall mechanism.

But for a realistic timeframe, you're probably looking at up to a year. I wish the national chief were here; he'd probably be in a better position to say. That is why we're insisting that the federal government cannot give the sense of not dealing with the issue while they're waiting for a plan, because the needs in our regions and across the country are far too great to have to wait an extended amount of time before there is investment in housing.

Realistically, I would say at least six to nine months to a year to get the initial work started. But then there's the whole element of capacity building, allocation models. There's a lot of work to be done. I'm really not in a position to give you an exact timeframe, but it's not something that's going to occur quickly; it's going to take some time, for sure. It's a very complex issue.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Kaludjak.

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Thank you, sir.

Your question was how long would it take to correct the housing problem in our areas? Was that your question?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: You're talking about taking over the industry and having it as a tool of economic development. How long would you see it taking in your area to be able to accomplish this?

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: We talked about how much housing we would need, those kinds of stats, and it will depend. As the lady said, it took ten years. Where has our work gone over the last ten years?

I think it would really help to say that we've presented our case to you and to the committee. We should work beyond that to make sure what we are telling you gets acted on accordingly, as soon as possible, with the system--addressing it together. That would speed up the process of correcting the housing situation in Nunavut.

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: I would like to add to Paul's comments.

First of all, would we be included in this housing strategy that Minister Mitchell mentioned?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Well, we were talking about it the other day. We were talking about aboriginal housing. You know, it's--

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: With Inuit inclusion?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: Okay, great.

We've been working with the Government of Nunavut, the Nunavut Housing Corporation, for about a year now. We've formed a working group. We're developing a strategy.

On another note, we already have Inuit-owned companies, institutions that built the infrastructure for the Government of Nunavut, pre-1999 and beyond. So the companies are there. The infrastructure is there for the work to be done. It's just a matter of resources.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, my colleague, the member for Drummond, asked a question about the dramatic situations experienced by some communities. I was thinking of Barrière Lake and Weymontachie particularly.

Mr. Haymond, when you published your study on housing needs in Quebec and Labrador, I would first like to know how it was received by the federal government.

Second, in your discussions with the federal government, has there been any provision for drawing up an emergency plan to really assist communities most affected by the poor conditions or simply a lack of housing?

So these are my two questions: how did the government receive the report and have you suggested an action plan to deal with drastic emergency situations? There seems to be no such plan in place.

Á (1120)

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: I'll answer your two questions.

On the first question, when the report was first received by the regional office, they had some concerns in regard to the statistical data and the validity of the data. We then, in turn, worked with StatsCan and the regional office to be able to mitigate the differences between the data we had compiled and those available from StatsCan. Once the data were reconciled to everyone's agreement, they were accepted quite readily by the regional office. But of course with the regional allocation models, all of the funding comes from the federal government. The region made an immediate commitment to work with the first nations of Quebec and Labrador to facilitate getting increases in financing to be better able to meet those needs.

From there, as you're quite aware, we made a major lobbying effort after the new year to raise the profile of the housing situation at the national level. But we tended to focus more on the regional office, with a view that it would bring regional concerns to a national body, thereby to be in a better position to allocate funding within the envelope system and increase the funding proportion related to housing for the Quebec region.

Globally, I would have to say that the report from the regional office was well accepted, even at the federal level. But of course there was no announcement in the budget in regard to dealing with the issue, so I would say that in a sense it was fairly well received.

In regard to getting a response and being able to meet some of those needs, we're still in limbo and still not able to meet the needs, which is why I've been insisting that the national plan is good for the medium to long term, but that the short-term needs in Quebec alone demand that we have immediate action now.

And you're right, in the provision of the document, we did not look at an emergency response, because this document was essentially trying to identify all of the elements and to give a global picture of the housing situation of the first nations in Quebec and Labrador. The crisis situations in Barriere Lake and the Weymontachie Band, which you mentioned, occurred after the development of the document, but they are something that I'm sure the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador would like to work on with the regional office to establish those kinds of mechanisms. So when the situations do arise, and they will continue to arise because of the staggering backlog that exists in Quebec, we need to have that kind of plan. But the intention in this document really was to articulate the situation and not necessarily how to deal with emergency situations.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to ask another question.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Can you tell me, Mr. Haymond, how much on average is earmarked for each housing unit by the federal government? You must have seen these figures in your analysis of the housing needs. I have seen some figures, but I would like confirmation from you.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: In the Quebec region, the average subsidy that is provided for housing is approximately $32,000 per community. It varies from southern communities, which get less because of a number of factors.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Do you think that in the case of some aboriginal communities—earlier I mentioned the examples of Weymontachie, Barrière Lake and other communities that are experiencing problems—we can pay the extra amount required to build houses that will last? Do you think the government will opt for somewhat decent houses or for houses that are of such poor quality that they do not last, and have to be rebuilt after five or ten years?

Á (1125)

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: In some communities, that is the particular reality. The documentation that was done on Barrière Lake really indicated that because of the community's financial situation, ministerial guarantees and alternate sources of funding, additional sources of funding beyond the subsidy are not available to that particular community. So they are stuck essentially between a rock and a hard place of having the need to build homes and only having a certain allotment.

So in the community you're making reference to, that is a potential.... And it was very much visualized in the report done by the CBC that this is in fact the case. Again, with the diversity that exists across Quebec region, there are different realities. Barrière Lake is one, Weymontachie another, and there are others.

But we also have some success stories where communities, as Madame Atkinson has said, have been able to access ministerial guarantees and have been able to facilitate doing a better job within what I believe she called the housing initiative. But from 1997 to 2002, it was not renewed. So from 2002 to now, communities that have made progress in regard to housing as a result of this initiative are now back to square one, because the same type of financing is not presently available to meet the demands that are there within the region.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Before giving the floor to Mr. Laliberte, I have a question for Mr. Haymond. Did you say $32,000 for each community or for each house?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Try to build a house with that.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: On average, it is $32,000 per home, but it varies from a low of $24,000 to a high of $38,000. But on average, at the 40 communities in Quebec, $32,000 is the base rate per unit.

The Chair: Monsieur Kaludjak, for Nunavik, for Nunavut, how much do you pay to transport the material for housing?

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: For the building material?

The Chair: Yes, one house.

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: For example, one two-by-four that you can buy in Ottawa for $3.40 costs us $9.50, and that's because of the freight. I believe it's about $250 a tonne for shipping. I don't have the rates with me right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Could it cost $30,000 for a house shipped to Nunavut?

[English]

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Yes, easily.

[Translation]

The Chair: That is the price of a house in the south.

There's been reference to Barrière Lake and Weymontachie, Ms. Atkinson. You are responsible for the follow-up. Is it possible that currently, 103 houses are required in Barrière Lake and 227 houses are needed in Weymontachie, in light of what is happening at the moment? Is the figure between 221 and 225?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess, first of all, I would go back to my original statement, that we don't see the money that we provide as a subsidy per house per se. I agree with the chief that when you look at sort of a per capita in looking at the housing budget, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the figures in terms of $32,000, and it varies.

This is, as I said, part of the negotiations with individual communities in terms of the money that will be provided through the funding agreements on housing, and it does vary. Although it's based largely on population, there are other factors taken into account, such as isolation, and so on.

Again, we absolutely recognize that there are some communities where being able to access other sources of funding is just not within their grasp. They don't have the level of employment; they don't have the possibility for economic development; they don't have the same possibilities as other communities have in terms of being able to supplement the funding that is provided by the Department of Indian Affairs, to top up the money that is provided by the Department of Indian Affairs.

CMHC also provides funding for first nations communities. Under section 95 of the National Housing Act, there is a subsidy program for social housing on reserve. Many communities access CMHC funding for that. That's another source of funding available to first nations communities.

But I think, as the national chief also said, the problems of resolving situations like the one we find in Barrière Lake are complicated. Certainly money is part of the solution. I don't think any of us will disagree that money is part of the solution.

We need to work within our existing fiscal resources, as I know you're all aware, and we need to look for new solutions to be able to deal with these longstanding problems of housing shortages. In those communities where access to alternate sources of funding is much more difficult to get at, we need to work in partnership with those communities and with the first nation leadership to determine new and different ways of trying to resolve those problems.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I apologize, Mr. Laliberte. You have really been very patient. I skipped you earlier, but now it is your turn.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I regret the national chief's not being here, because my question was directed into treaty rights to shelter. In my region of Treaty 6, this was negotiated by the treaties. But I wanted to change it by making an acknowledgement that the aboriginal chiefs, when they negotiated a treaty, saw a national vision, a social policy for all Canadians. It wasn't only for on-reserve aboriginal people; it was a social housing policy for all Canadians.

The other thing I wanted to state for the record, and maybe you can concur, is the question whether there is a housing crisis because we have a population explosion. Our young people have never been at this number. My village is reaching 1,000 Métis people. We have never been at that size. We have a Métis community in my neighbourhood of 2,000; we've never been 2,000 people in those villages. There are 4,000 in a Dene community. In Cree communities there are 5,000 or 6,000. We have never had such populations, and we are still trying to address housing in an old way.

What I would like to challenge, maybe as part of the recognition of nations, is this. I have a very difficult time accepting the government's definition of “First Nations” with a capital “F” and a capital “N”, meaning a First Nation is a band council—which means 630 First Nations. To me it's a small “f” and a capital “N”, and the “first Nations” are Ojibway, Mi'kmaq, Cree, Dene, and I would push the limit by saying the Métis fit into the original definition of “first Nations”, and so do the Inuit—the original nations of this country.

Let's show the country who the original nations of this country are, and maybe as a group—as a collective—we can connect with the government, not only to see the vision of our aboriginal nations or peoples, but to show the country how it can live in this land.

In this land, we're in the middle of the boreal forest. We shouldn't have a housing crisis in Canada; it's absolutely ridiculous. It's a definition of a sick society if you can't come out of yourself with your own resources. I think economic development is the right angle.

When I left high school, I joined a housing crew in my community. Shortly after that—about five years after I joined the housing crew—I was earning up to $10 an hour in 1976 as a labourer: painting, building a house, putting the foundation in. Today, because of private sector ownership, the young people looking for the same housing jobs are getting $7 or $8 an hour—minimum wage. This is 2004. I was earning $10 in 1976 for the same work.

There has to be some concept of how each community does it. Our young people are unemployed at all our communities. There should be a housing crew. We need electricians, plumbers, carpenters, everything, but the concept of being innovative—I wanted to point to Oujé-bougoumou—goes beyond housing. Look at the heating source and the energy source. Oujé-bougoumou looked at a collective heating source. One stove heats the whole community, and in the last Expo, the World Expo in Germany, it was dedicated as a village of the future.

Here's one of our own aboriginal villages that had a vision of how to construct itself designed on the old ways, and the world recognized us. Our own country can't even recognize that model; that each community—Barrière Lake, even Iqaluit—could have one stove heating the whole city. Instead, we pump natural gas or diesel into each community to heat each individual house. We could have collective housing units and we could be addressing Kyoto at the same time.

The other point I wanted to raise was we have spent $2 billion to sell our softwood lumber to the United States. Why don't we raise the stumpage fee—have a national stumpage fee rate for national housing? That $2 billion could be a social housing program for this country. It's growing; it will be $3 billion by the end of this year. There has to be a national vision.

Standards.... Being a carpenter, I just recently built a house. Dual-pane housing: that's where the moisture originates from; that's where we have respiratory and lung diseases coming from, because of the mildew. Have triple-pane glass. It costs a little more up-front, but the housing will last a lot longer; it's not as wet inside the building. Dual-pane is the standard you give to all first nations on-reserve housing right now.

Á (1135)

Change that standard. Do triple pane. We live in Canada. We don't live in Florida or Montana. We live in the harshest climate, so we need to be innovative and collective in our thoughts and to use ingenuity. Look at the concepts of technology up in Nunavut. Some of those could be applied to the mid-Canada boreal forest concepts. We live with trees. I know the north doesn't have the trees. We need to create a market among ourselves. I think we could collect some of the oriented strandboards that we're making and maybe use structural insulated panels.

I just want to finish this off. It's not really a question to anyone. I want to give you a lesson from an elder back in my community. I observed how he built his house. When he originally built his house, it was a little love nest for him and his wife. When their family expanded, they extended it in the back. Then their family got bigger, and they expanded it further in the back. As their family moved out, they decommissioned the back of the house. When their whole family moved out, they were back to their love nest and living together as senior citizens. They decommissioned the whole back end, and they were only heating and providing power for that small unit.

Right now in Toronto there are split houses and big mansions. We give them to the people who are starting their family life. But at the end, when senior citizens are burdened with the cost of heating a big house on a limited income, we have to use innovative ways to deal with that. Structural insulated panels could be used.

The old concept of the hunter-gatherer is that you could move your house. A lot of people can't move. A first nations person may marry another first nations person from another reserve, but they can't bring their house to the other side. They can't bring that value. If you move from Toronto to Quebec City, you can sell your house and move your value. You can't move that value. But maybe structural insulated panels are possible. Maybe you could literally move that house.

Mobile units are the worst example of housing in any of our communities. It's because of departmental policy. You have to spend this money by a certain date. Sometimes the only option is to bring in ready-made houses, and that's the worst thing for a community. There's no pride in it, and there's no economic development in it.

I think that structurally we have to look at a new model. I think the Inuit, the Métis, and the first nations as a collective should look at a way to address the national housing crisis right now. If you want to engage with the government, I think the minister and the Prime Minister are willing to look at a way to address this. I think there's a way to transfer treasury funds to your resources to address these issues in an innovative way. I think we have to do it right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Kaludjak.

[English]

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that most of that was directed to the first nations, but I agree with a lot of the statements you've made. We're telling you that we need help. I get into trouble when I start talking about lumberjacks and forestry, because we're in the tundra, and the closest one we have is Nancy's community, which is 40 miles away, and there are no roads so that you can go and cut down lumber.

I agree with you that there's a population crisis in the north. We need housing. We're going to get it using new technology and new innovative ideas. I concur with you. That's exactly what we're doing. We plan to put forth to the Prime Minister a new special ten-year federal intervention on housing initiative. We'll work that through Nancy and make sure that housing becomes a priority of the government and that the problems we're facing today get taken care of. We ask this committee to help us get the message across to the federal government and the other parties with regard to the housing situation in the north.

I know we're running out of time. I do have speaking notes, if you missed some of the comments I made this morning. They contain some numbers with regard to housing and the rise in population that we're facing up north and what we need to do next to correct the housing problem in Nunavut. I'll leave that with you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Á (1140)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak.

You have the floor, Mr. Haymond.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: I will answer the questions posed by Mr. Laliberte in the order he discussed them.

On treaty rights, you're right it is a question that is more directed to the national chief. As an Algonquin coming from the province of Quebec, I believe I have unextinguished aboriginal title and I am not party to any treaty. So my expertise in that area is nil.

On demographics, you're right it is a contributing factor to the reality we're facing today. Between 1986 and 1999, the population of Quebec first nations increased by 60%, an average of 4.6% per year, while the entire Quebec population increased by only 12.5%, which is 1% per year. Combined with the fact that 50% of our population right now is 25 years of age and younger, the problem is serious, but the age stratum that has been identified in our demographics shows that the problem is only going to get worse.

As long as there is inactivity in meeting the demands now, the demographics.... I'm sure it's consistent with other aboriginal groups. We're all living the same reality. We have population explosions and nowhere near the resources to meet the demands.

On the issue of going out and cutting trees, that's a jurisdictional issue that is difficult to resolve. It means you'll have to have some discussion with the province on access to resources and revenues derived from those resources, because the federal government has transferred the jurisdiction to the province in those areas.

On your last point, that we need to be innovative, I think the national chief.... No one here will deny that we have to be innovative, but to combine all the realities together would be a difficult task. The realities in the north are very much different from those of the south. Speaking from provincial experience, the one-size formula to fit all is not the approach. They have to be articulated to meet the regional requirements of each region across Canada because we are so diverse.

[Translation]

The Chair: Please be brief, Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I didn't say to put the jurisdictions together. Instead of the ministers being responsible, maybe the first nations leaders as governments should take the responsibility for housing.

The other concern I have is Bill C-23, the former Bill C-19, the fiscal institutions bill. If you have a housing crisis, school crisis, or a hospital clinic crisis, it will be very easy for the government to point to the financial institutions bill and tell you to borrow the money. Then you'll be debt-ridden as a result of addressing your social housing needs. So there's a catch-22 with that one. It's a double-edged sword, so watch Bill C-23 if it comes in. If the government looks at housing as a crisis and points to the financial institutions to fund it, you'll be putting debt on the young people you're talking about, in trying to address the housing issue. So watch that issue.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to be sure I understand what is going on with respect to housing. I'm going to go back to the example of Weymontachie, because it is the one I have been most struck by since last year. There's a need for some 200 houses.

The Chair: Two hundred and twenty-one.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The figure I had was 225. We will not be difficult about three or four units more or less, but there is a need for some 200 units, and according to the figures Mr. Haymond gave us and that I have heard before, the cost is between $32,000 and $35,000 for this community, as it is for Winneway, where the situation is much the same. That means that in order to build a decent basic house that will deteriorate at a normal rate, not an accelerated rate, we need to spend almost twice as much—perhaps even as much as $80,000. If there is $32,000 per house in Weymontachie, that means that this community, with a population of some 1,200 people, and an unemployment rate of over 50 %, will have to get its own funding of between 6 and $8 million to build these houses. That is about what it amounts to.

How can we think that we can get this community out of its mess when it would have to come up with 6 to $8 million somewhere, and the region's only resource is wood? A proposal to build a sawmill collapsed because of the softwood lumber crisis, and there is no further economic development in that region. So how can we help this community get out of its terrible situation?

I could have named Barrière Lake, because the situation is exactly the same there, with fewer houses but more unemployment. What is the solution? There does not seem to be any plan or policy in place. So far, I have not had an answer indicating that there is a clear policy. We have some problem regions, regions that are underdeveloped that cannot consider getting financing on their own. So we have a budget that takes that into account. We are talking about places where things are not working out, but there are many places where things are working out. Mashteuiatsh has changed in the last few years as regards housing. We can name them all: Essipit, Betsiamites and others. But there are regions where there are very serious problems.

What can we do about situations like that, Mr. Haymond, and perhaps Ms. Atkinson as well? So far, I've not had a clear answer, unless we increase the budgets and increase the government's financial contribution for each house. It must be even worse in your communities, because of the cost of materials. But where is the emergency plan? I think it's quite clear that something must be done. Have you anything in particular in mind?

The Chair: Mr. Etitiq.

[English]

Mr. Kowesa Etitiq: Thank you for your comments.

Yes, 60% of our people are under the age of 25. Our growth rate is 8.1%, double Canada's average of 4%. One small public housing unit of average size, 735 square feet, costs $250,000 to build. That's after transportation costs. You don't get hardwood floors; you get linoleum floors. It's just a basic house with no attic or basement--nothing fancy about it. The costs are astronomical when you add them up.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Atkinson.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I appreciate the question of what are we going to do about the immediate needs in communities where we have significant shortages and very poor housing conditions. I guess I go back to what the national chief said when he was here. We need to sit down with the first nation leadership and identify ways we can resolve these longstanding problems.

It's not just a question of money. I think that's a point the national chief made as well. We need to look at the money that is available now for housing, but it's not just a question of money. We need to find alternate ways and innovative solutions. We need to look at the economic development potential.

I appreciate what you're saying--that in communities where the unemployment rate is 50%, 80%, or higher, economic development opportunities are perhaps not quite as evident. Are there job creation activities that we can undertake? What can we do to try to support those communities in turning the corner in dealing with the socio-economic conditions, starting with housing? I don't have any easy answers, but I think the key for us in trying to resolve these issues is to do it in partnership with the first nations leadership when we're talking about on-reserve housing, and find ways to resolve these issues together.

Á (1150)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'd like to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I can understand that we need to think of innovative solutions, Ms. Atkinson. I agree with you there. I can understand that we need to think of other ways of financing and maintaining houses. Those are medium and long-term solutions. This type of approach can apply in a number of communities.

The problem is that there are some incredibly urgent situations and places where we should not allow human beings to live. If we respect human dignity and care about people's health, we should not leave them living in such unhealthy conditions.

I went to Barrière Lake and to Weymontachie. I must confess that I would not even let a dog live in those houses. What do we do about situations like that in a normal country that is concerned about the well-being of its people? We must implement an emergency plan immediately and get the people out of these houses and build others as quickly as possible. In some communities, overcrowding has reached ridiculous proportions.

If we look at the statistics on overcrowding that you just gave us, Mr. Etitiq, with a population growth rate of 8 per cent, there must be many houses where two or three families are living together. Such situations are untenable.

I think we need to prioritize situations. There are urgent situations where action must be taken quickly and a maximum amount of funding provided, and there are others where we have to be imaginative and think about the medium and long-term solutions. In the meantime, we must not let human beings live in such conditions. This is an urgent and pressing problem.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

You have the floor, Mr. Haymond.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: I would like to respond to Mr. Loubier's question.

Ms. Atkinson is right: it's going to take work. That is already ongoing at the national level, but by the same token there has to be some manoeuvrability for a region such as Quebec to be able to meet its short-term needs. As I keep insisting, they are very important.

We have looked, as an example, at the possibility of potentially doubling the budget that is currently allocated for first nation housing. I'm speaking only in a regional perspective to help us deal with the existing backlog. That would be done in the short term, while the national process is being developed and ongoing. It would allow us to begin to facilitate meeting the short-term needs right away.

The reason I say that is because it's not too late for that type of investment and announcement, as this is the middle of April, and the current construction season in most first nation communities begins at the end of May and June. So with some punctual intervention of new funding.... I know the system; it's not effective. Quebec is very aware that the system is not effective. We need to build, on average, 1,400 units a year to maintain our demographic needs, but currently we're only building 440 units, which is about one-third of the required units.

So you're asking for solutions. In the short term, additional investment is required. For us, it would give a sign of good faith that the federal government is serious about working to a longer-term solution to find real and concrete solutions to our problems in regard to first nation housing.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Haymond. In closing, I would like to thank you for being here. In Ottawa, it's very rare that meetings go beyond their scheduled time by close to an hour. I would also like to thank the interpreters and all the staff, because there is a lot involved when committees go one hour longer! In any case, when we have witnesses like yourselves, who have come from so far away to explain a crisis—

Mr. Loubier said that we must find innovative solutions. For a number of years now, I have been saying that I have an innovative solution that might help you. When there is an ice storm or a flood, what is the first thing we do to help people, families and children? We pick up the phone and call in the army, the Department of National Defence. There is a crisis at the moment.

We send our armed forces to other countries throughout the world or to build or rebuild Iraq, where we destroyed nothing. We invested $300 million in Irak to help rebuild that country. Perhaps once it is rebuilt, it will be destroyed one month later by another country.

My innovative solution, which I have been talking about for a year or two now, is to call in the Department of National Defence. Our armed forces are there to carry out these social missions. Moreover, they are already being paid. That would help you reduce all the work you have to do, particularly in remote regions.

We are experiencing this situation in Nunavik. In Chisasibi at the moment, there is a need for 700 more houses. In Mistassini, the community needs 600 houses. It is not just a question of money, but also one of cooperation. We have the skills and calibre of people required in the Department of National Defence to build houses. The department has engineers. The senior officials and the deputy minister will definitely tell me tomorrow that my solution is too easy.

With respect to the softwood lumber crisis, I suggested we keep the wood in Canada for a year or two. Building a house out of wood is much safer than construction where aluminum is put between the storeys. When a frame house catches fire, it is possible to save 75% of it, but when a house is built of metal, fire destroys it completely.

In closing, I would just like to say that we will be meeting again, because this matter is simply too urgent. I appreciate our officials: you are competent individuals, but we need immediate solutions. I also appreciate the fact that some committee members stayed until the end: Nancy, Rick and Yvan.

[English]

I would say to you, Paul Kaludjak, thank you very much.

And thank you very much, Mr. Haymond.

[Translation]

Mr. Kaludjak, you said

[English]

on page 14 that the second report coming from Nunavut would be released next week. Is it possible that I could receive a copy here at the committee?

Mr. Paul Kaludjak: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.