AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 29, 2001

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order, please.

Today in our meeting for Thursday, March 29, 2001, we have before us witnesses from AFN and ITC. But before we get into that, I'd like to take care of a small housekeeping item: our budget submission for April 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. This has been passed around and you should have a copy of it. We were just notified yesterday that we should submit a budget proposal by 3 p.m. today, so I'd like to take care of this item.

We have a budget submission of $48,800 for April 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to address them.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam Chair, we have approximately $50,000, or more precisely $48,000. In relation to the other committees of the House of Commons... I think that the committee should obtain more money in the course of the year. If we want to do a really efficient job and visit the Inuit communities in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Nunavik as well as aboriginal communities in Canada, I think that the House of Commons should give us greater support. Is that a fixed amount? Would it be possible for us to obtain more money later on?

[English]

The Chair: From what I understand, this is the first submission, and if we get firm commitments to travel we can submit another budget for additional funds based on actual expenses. We felt we would put in what we think we might need to June 30 because of the time limitations on us—we have to have this submitted by 3 p.m. today.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CA): I'd simply say I think it looks reasonable and I would move that we adopt this as the budget for our committee.

The Chair: It is moved by Mr. Vellacott, seconded by Mr. Bagnell, that the budget submission be approved. All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, before we hear our witnesses, I would like to draw attention to the presence among us of spectators from the far North. Perhaps you could extend a welcome to them on our behalf, as committee chair, whose appointment we appreciate?

[English]

The Chair: I was intending to do that now that we've taken care of some business.

I would very much like to welcome the class of Nunavut Sivuniksavut to this committee room to observe this committee in progress. I know you have a very interesting class, and we always appreciate you coming out to see us work in action. So welcome to the class of 2000 Nunavut Sivuniksavut.

• 1115

This morning, as per our agenda, we wanted to get a national view of the housing situation. So before us we have the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, which is a national Inuit organization for the Inuit in Canada. That organization is represented by Pitseolak Pfeifer and Mr. Roy Wilson. We also have the Assembly of First Nations, represented by Mr. Greg Carter and Mr. Kenneth Young.

I think it will be beneficial that we hear from both organizations. That way the committee members can feel free to ask questions of either organization. Even though they're very different organizations, I think it will do the committee good to hear both presentations first before we proceed with questions, if that's all right with the committee members.

I would like to give the floor over to the ITC to start their presentation. Mr. Pfeifer.

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer (Director, Social Economic Development, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, standing committee members...

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

...for allowing us to make a presentation to you today.

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada represents the interests of Inuit all over Canada, representing 55 communities spanning four regions and several time zones—from the Inuvialuit of the Beaufort region on the upper left section of the Northwest Territories, the Inuit of Nunavut, the Inuit of Nunavik in northern Quebec, and the Inuit of Labrador.

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the national organization representing all Canadian Inuit, has been concerned with the lack of adequate housing in Inuit communities since its inception 30 years ago.

Incidentally, we'll be enjoying our 30th anniversary this year.

The housing situation for many Inuit has been in a state of crisis since the first Inuit families were moved into settlements during the 1950s and 1960s by the federal government. Since that time, housing has remained a top priority for all major Inuit organizations and has consistently been identified as exacerbating serious social and economic problems that exist in Inuit communities.

ITC recognizes that there is no single, simple solution to providing adequate housing for Inuit. A number of substantial challenges continue to frustrate people across all sectors and jurisdictions responsible for providing housing. ITC continues to firmly believe that a fundamental element to effectively addressing the housing crisis is a substantial infusion of new funding. This basic reality is recognized by all of the stakeholders contacted within the context of what we do.

However, that being said, it is acknowledged that obtaining these funds would involve a coordinated and vigorous strategy at the political level and is therefore beyond the practical context of the things we are doing today.

In an effort to move beyond this fundamental assumption and towards some constructive and progressive movement on this important issue, ITC believes that an effort must be made to continue to work closely with Inuit, government, non-government, and private sector stakeholders to take a fresh perspective on the Inuit housing situation and to carefully consider and explore innovative means of addressing the issue.

Housing is, without doubt, a complex issue and impacts upon many critical aspects of Inuit communities. These communities are primarily small, isolated, and face numerous challenges in meeting the basic standards of living that most Canadians take for granted.

• 1120

We've been examining this issue in particular since 1993 when CMHC cut back funding for new social housing construction. We've made various presentations. We've heard, in 1999, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs' recommendations. We appreciate the efforts made by the committee in 1999, particularly those of Mr. Guy St-Julien, in the recommendation that called on the federal government to take immediate action to meet the housing needs of the Inuit of Nunavik and that noted the requirement for the federal government to do more in dealing with housing and infrastructure needs for northern aboriginal communities.

However, it's important to state that more work needs to continue. The efforts that have been made by the committee have produced some good results, in particular for the Inuit of Nunavik. What we are saying now is we need to take a bigger approach as far as the Inuit of Canada are concerned.

We continue to face a housing crisis situation. On an average of 15 people live in houses... We've heard the president of the Labrador Inuit Association giving testimony last November at our first-ever national Inuit housing consultation meeting, where he cited that there were families of 37 people living in a three-bedroom home in Labrador.

I'm sure you've heard testimony in the past about the deplorable living conditions of aboriginal people in Canada. But this is one of the primary examples, one of the worst examples, that face our communities today. The problems are faced by all of our regions today.

The CMHC cutbacks not only cut the knees out of the Inuit social housing needs, but have also... If we examine for a second the CMHC mandate, primarily the CMHC mandate for aboriginal people has been focused on first nations on reserve. Aboriginal first nations on reserve have been able to enjoy, annually, over $100 million for construction of new housing.

If we look at the relationship between the Inuit and Canada, and we consider ourselves proud Canadians, the fact is that the Inuit have not been able to enjoy any of the housing benefits provided by the Government of Canada through CMHC and DIAND.

What we are asking for is that we be allowed to be put on an equal level playing field. We're not looking for a handout. What we're trying to do is be on par with the rest of Canadians. I'm sure you all understand that for Inuit living in remote communities there are some substantial challenges in meeting our housing needs, and a higher cost of living, which exacerbates those challenges.

But if we look at commitment toward providing more housing for Inuit communities, you'll find that the economic spinoffs not only help create capacity-building for the Inuit communities, but the rest of Canada can enjoy the economic spinoffs resulting in new construction as well.

As you all know, we have no trees, so we need wood. We need everything to be shipped up north. So the Canadian economy can be greatly enhanced by providing more commitment to new construction.

You've heard, I'm sure, many stories of the social problems that are facing Inuit communities. There's a great correlation between the lack of housing, and the overcrowding in housing, in Inuit communities and health. There is the fact that young people need space and safe environments to study in their homes, but when there's overcrowding obviously it's not a good place to study.

We have overcrowding. There are obvious health issues. There are also other social issues that result in overcrowding. Primarily, the youth cannot continue to develop as the next generation of Inuit or as Canadians. Adequate housing has to be provided so that we can continue to build healthy communities and healthy families.

It's an extreme pleasure to have some of the Nunavut youth here today. I'm sure they can explain to you some of those conditions.

Since the 1950s, as we all remember, Canada, in order to assert its sovereignty, required that the north needed to be developed. It convinced Inuit to move into the settlements. There were promises made of housing, education, and health. We've made some good advances as far as education and some advances as far as health, but the lack of commitment to housing has done nothing for Inuit to allow us to become full participants as Canadians.

• 1125

Some of the other issues that face our communities not only deal with overcrowding and health, but they deal with the need for economic development and spin-offs. As you all know, if we create housing, we've created economic benefits, and, as I've said, not only to the north but to the southern economy as well.

We've conducted a research and consultation project, and our presentation here is timely because in November we had our first-ever national Inuit consultation meeting. We were able to bring together Inuit leaders, presidents, presidents of housing corporations, and presidents of the provinces and territories that deal with housing. They came together, and we identified a lot of the current issues. We identified a lot of the next steps and identified a lot of the recommendations. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to publish this document to present to you today. We will do so in the next couple of weeks.

When I spoke earlier about CMHC, its mandate primarily towards first nations on reserve... What we're asking for is that the Government of Canada commit to developing a national Inuit housing program. Despite the best intentions of a number of stakeholders, the simple, stark reality is that Inuit remain, as they have for decades, the most poorly housed people in the country. The impact of this reality is to exact an unacceptable toll on a vulnerable population.

We're not asking for a handout, but we want to participate fully as Canadians. We're proud Canadians, and we're proud taxpayers as well. Because of this, we find that we want to continue to work with Canada, to work with the committee, and to work with the federal government.

If we look at the fiduciary responsibility of Canada, I need to explain to you that, just because land claims have been settled in three out of four of our regions, it doesn't mean that responsibility for addressing our social problems rests on us. We have to recall that the purpose of land claim settlements has been primarily for compensation because we did want to be part of Canada, so we gave them title to the land. Therefore, we received compensation.

We don't want to use that money to provide our own health care, nor to provide our own education, nor to provide our own housing. That was never the intent, and I think there are some misconceptions out there amongst Canadians and perhaps some parliamentarians about what that perception might be about land claims. Certainly it was never the intent so far as the fiduciary responsibility of Canada, and we all know that Inuit are equally recognized in the Constitution.

Our priority needs... you might find some of these numbers staggering, but through our initial assessments we find that, throughout all of the Inuit communities of Canada, we need over 8,000 new houses to be built, presently, just to meet the demand. This number has been based upon the most current needs assessment studies available and reflects the rapid increase in population that has occurred since these studies were conducted. This number reflects only the number of housing units that need to be built to accommodate the backlog of housing needs.

If we look at the average cost of construction of a new housing unit of $100,000, I think the math can tell you easily how much of a dollar figure we're talking about. We have to come up with new, innovative solutions, especially for financing. We've spoken to the birthright development corporations. They certainly want to be part of it, but if we look at the cost, it's very difficult to find those huge amounts of dollars. But there has to be partnership, and we're willing to be partners.

• 1130

The 1999 annual report from CMHC, A Strong Past—A Bright Future, describes what it has done for providing funding for a substantial number of new, on-reserve homes. They went on to specifically state that they provided 1,050 new homes for first nations on reserve and conducted renovations of over 700 existing units. So this clearly demonstrates that there is a lack of commitment from the Government of Canada as far as its commitment to aboriginal people. It's certainly very well committed to first nations on reserve.

Our priority needs are elders and youth, and particularly young families. Our population is growing at twice the national average, and 60% of the population is under 25. So as these young families continue to grow, they require their own housing units. So, again, when I spoke about having a healthy family and a healthy community, obviously, you know they need to have their own space.

Public housing—Inuit reliance upon social housing has not diminished over time despite the fact that there are likely more Inuit homeowners than ever before. Socioeconomic determinants and a very underdeveloped housing market in virtually all Inuit communities ensure that heavy reliance upon social housing remains a reality well into the future.

There has been some success in various home ownership programs that provide subsidies and incentives for people who can afford their own homes to move out of social housing units. These programs should be encouraged and expanded where possible. Not only do such programs help free up valuable social housing units, but they also enable more families to begin to build up equity in their homes, provide a more diversified local and regional housing market, and stimulate the economy at the local and regional levels.

The Chair: Mr. Pfeifer, if I can draw your presentation to a close, then we'll hear from AFN, and you'll have more opportunity with the questions from the members. Thank you.

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess in closing I just want to reiterate the fact that we are a growing population. We won't have healthy families, healthy communities, healthy youth, or healthy individuals without proper, adequate housing. That is the only way that Inuit will continue to enjoy being proud Canadians, and this is something for which we certainly look to this committee to provide strong recommendations to the House of Commons.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pfeifer, for your presentation. I'd like to turn the floor over to AFN, represented by Mr. Greg Carter and Mr. Kenneth Young. If you could do a brief summary of AFN's initiatives on the national picture, and then I'll give an opportunity to the members to ask questions...

Mr. Carter.

Mr. Greg Carter (Director, Housing and Infrastructure, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting the Assembly of First Nations to make a presentation to the standing committee this morning, and welcome, our future leaders.

I myself brought the Vice-Chief Kenneth Young from the Manitoba region. He's our chair for our Chiefs' Committee on Housing within the Assembly of First Nations.

The Assembly of First Nations is comprised of a variety of secretariats from the National Indian Brotherhood, where we actually focus on a variety of issues related to the on-reserve and off-reserve situation. Our objective is housing and infrastructure, and we work directly with the other secretariats in terms of the social ills that transpire from the conditions on reserves—the social justice, the health, the environment, the economics, and what have you.

We'll give a pre-presentation on where the chiefs committee has been mandated, and our roles and responsibilities within our environment. The presentation itself is on the current conditions of first nations territories in Canada.

• 1135

At this time, we'd like to address some of the issues and mandates from our chiefs committee, and first, the lack of resources available to first nations communities to provide housing services and infrastructure—the basic elements of providing infrastructure, electrification, sewer and water, waste water management. Those, unfortunately, have been lacking in the past. The Departments of Indian Affairs, Environment, and Health Canada have been engaging in a variety of strategies to combat this, or to reallocate some of the existing resources so as to target some of the first nations who don't have the basic essentials for infrastructure.

One of our roles, as part of the Assembly of First Nations, is to lobby for those basic needs. Unfortunately, up to this point we haven't had an opportunity to make a presentation to a standing committee of the House of Commons or, with the assistance of our ministers, to resolve some of our issues. We'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation.

In regard to on-reserve housing conditions, first nations leaders have consistently stated that the provision of adequate, safe, healthy housing is a priority within the communities, not only within the communities at the first nations level within the reserve environment, but with the urban first nations as well. They don't have the opportunity to have housing on reserves and are forced to relocate or move off the reserve through economic, education, health, and other circumstances.

But overcrowding is the leading cause of migration from first nations territories. If we did 20-year demographics on where we're heading in the future with the first nations and their communities and the environment, I guess we'd find the youth has been 65% of the population. How does that affect our future endeavours? How do we actually manage our first nations youth today in order for them to be productive in the near future? These are the kinds of strategies on which we are hopefully going to provide insight to this committee, in an attempt to resolve some of our current situations.

There's a broad consensus that the conditions of much of the housing stock of first nations communities threaten the health and safety of community members. Lack of adequate and affordable housing is a major contributor to social problems in many communities, which leads not only to the social ills of alcohol, drug abuse, and family violence, but also to youth suicide.

Housing shortages limit the choices of new families for members who would like to return to the first nations communities, opportunities for people who are not so much encouraged, but forced to move off, because we become transients within our own communities. The current situation, where families are being forced from the house of one family member to another, having extended family situations, has gone on for too long. These, unfortunately, are single mothers within the first nations community. They are forced off into the urban centres, where we have our urban homelessness situation.

How many communities are we talking about? The size of the problem can seem overwhelming. The acquired resources to address the problem appear so limited that the status quo is simply unacceptable.

We have recommended two positions, based on recommendations from the RCAP of 1996. The Grand Council of the Cree gave a presentation to the same committee, and they reiterated the fact that overcrowded and atrocious conditions on reserves are evident, have been documented and studied over the past number of years. It's just a matter of resources. How do we invest in first nations communities to resolve some of the situations, or make it a brighter future?

Unfortunately, right now major capital investment is a necessity. We have two programs available to first nations communities on reserves. One is the Department of Indian Affairs' subsidy program. Their subsidy program, based on $92.9 million, has been capped since 1983. You can look at the situation back in 1983, the overcrowded conditions of the units back then, and the purchasing power of those dollars at that time, and then factor in the consumer price index as of today, with a growing population and need that's arisen on reserves, and a decrease in participation from CMHC.

• 1140

At one point in time, CMHC contributed a lot to subsidized housing under their current programs and mandates, but they've cut back since 1993. So with an increase in demand and an ever-decreasing supply of resources available, the chiefs and councils, the first nations communities, the first nations memberships, have been burdened with the situation we're faced with today. That's why we're here this morning.

First nations leaders have faced a severe and growing need to accommodate the existing on-reserve population; it's overcrowded. A total of 22,000 new housing units are immediately required within first nations communities—and this number, 22,000, is immediate. These are accurate figures taken from the department's capital management database, the department that actually monitors the number of units, the conditions of units, and the on-reserve population they provide services to. It is an agreed-upon number by both departments and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which actually does the data. So the 22,000 units... if we were to invest in modest three-bedroom units, it would be $3.2 billion.

If we made a presentation on the actual dollar figures versus the need and the actual possibilities, we would figure out how many resources we have today for first nations communities and what our actual demand or need is right now, and then evaluate the difference, the gap. That gap is what we're here to present today. How do we actually fill that gap or that void of programs?

The RCAP made two excellent recommendations that haven't been followed up: doubling the band base capital, the $92.9 million, as addressed in RCAP, the consumer price index. If you did the calculation itself, it would be under $72 million in purchasing power in today's dollars.

CMHC cut back since 1993. They've discontinued the off-reserve program, which has unfortunately resulted in the homelessness problem we have today and zero occupancy rates. An example would be downtown Ottawa—zero occupancy rates. We have people living on the streets—not transients, not the people we step over every day, but the families who don't have the opportunity to provide services to their children. Those are the reasons we are here today, because of our future, our population, our youth. We have to provide services for that group.

Hopefully we've given you some insight and some opportunities on how this committee can help us serve our membership, our clients, and your clientele, Canadian citizens.

With that brief presentation, I'm reiterating the Grand Council of the Cree's... in terms of the social impacts of the mould problems, the condition of the health of the children and the elderly, and lack of adequate units.

I'll turn the chair over to Chief Young.

The Chair: Mr. Young.

Chief Kenneth Young (Regional Chief (Manitoba), Assembly of First Nations): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, youth, the Inuit youth.

I'll be very brief. I'm the chair of the Chiefs' Committee on Housing, representing the Assembly of First Nations. Listening to the Inuit presentation, it appears to me that the crisis relating to housing and shelter—which is a basic right for everyone—is as bad there as it is within our communities.

What the first nations proposed to the government in relation to the political issue is this. We have recommended that an interdepartmental task force be created, which would consist of PCO, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Health Canada, HRDC, CMHC, and Natural Resources.

We propose that the task force should have a limited life because task forces—if they're not managed properly—tend to take a life of their own.

• 1145

We recommend that this task force be put together and a report be delivered to the Assembly of First Nations by the end of May. It's particularly important that this task force be created because the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs alone cannot provide the resources to get caught up with this housing shortage we're experiencing in our communities. It's impossible.

We expect, if this task force is properly structured and taken seriously by the appropriate ministers, that it should come back with recommendations that will resolve the housing crisis our people are facing today. I think if it's dealt with within a framework of five years, the housing crisis should be resolved among our people.

I also want to indicate that the public sector should not be the sole player here. I believe the private sector also has to be involved—and it is being involved as I speak—in relation to resolving the housing crisis among our people.

I just want to state, if the members here can assist in any way in forcing government to take this recommendation seriously—the creation of an interdepartmental task force—that the message be delivered, because it's really needed. It's needed to address this very serious problem we're facing here today.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your intervention, Chief Young.

We'll go into a round of questions now and start with Mr. St-Julien. You have seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before beginning, I would like to thank our Chair Nancy Karetak-Lindell. First of all a few words of background. In 1992 the vice-chair of the committee was our friend Jack Anawak and today, because of his leadership, because of our chair and all the members of the committee, we are holding discussions about the housing crisis.

My first question is for Mr. Pfeifer and relates to social problems. I like to say that for some time now, for the past 10 to 15 years, we've been carrying out studies. These studies have been shelved. Our rhetoric, promises and principles on social and political realities continue and have a permanent record. But today the Inuit and the First Nations of Canada are experiencing a very severe housing crisis at a time when the Government of Canada is sending people from National Defence on missions to communities overseas.

Mr. Pfeifer, there are homeless people where you live. The Department of Labour provides money to the homeless in our big cities . I have always made a point of telling my government that in the First Nations, in the northern areas and the reserves, there are also homeless people but they are not a problem for you because during the winter time you give them a chance to stay in the houses of other families because of the cold. There may be up to 15 or 20 people in the same house. Once the summer comes, people go to their fishing camp because it is a big territory. There is also hunting. But every winter, these people come back to say in houses.

They are never considered to be homeless but the government should realize that this is a problem. It results in social problems, tuberculosis, asthma. You know what the situation is. For you it is high time that the Government of Canada and particularly the provincial governments start cooperating to deal with this housing problem in our northern communities and in the South as well, as far as the First Nations are concerned.

• 1150

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. St-Julien, for asking this question. What you say is quite true.

[English]

Yes, absolutely, Monsieur St-Julien. Homelessness as southern Canadians perceive it is people living on the street, living under bridges. As you all know, the climate of the Arctic certainly wouldn't support somebody living outside.

When we talk about homelessness, we're talking about hidden homelessness. In other words, when somebody doesn't have a house, they rely on the graciousness of relatives and family to stay at their home. But obviously, when you don't have a home, there is a lack of self-worth. They have nowhere to go. We're talking about 15 people on average living in a house.

It's not because of large numbers of children; it's about other family members living there. It's about cousins and uncles and nieces and nephews living in a house because they have nowhere else to stay. There are only about three actual homeless centres in the large centres such as Iqaluit. But if we look at the other communities, they certainly don't enjoy that type of infrastructure that's available in the large centres.

So, yes, absolutely, Mr. St-Julien, homelessness for us is a hidden homelessness. In other words, you don't see it, but it's extremely evident because of the number of people living in the house. Absolutely, Monsieur.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: This problem has been around for several years now. Are the Department of Health, the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs doing something? We know that the Government of Canada has been very active for the past 10 or 15 years and has been working in collaboration but this has not proven to be enough. At the present time we are facing a serious crisis. If the Inuit and Aboriginal people, if the First Nations of Canada do not have housing for their entire family, then the economy of the communities will suffer.

Do these departments visit your communities? Do they attempt to find out what your concerns are? My question is for both of you, Mr. Carter and Mr. Pfeifer. Do they visit you to find out about your problems and to provide help? I am referring to the senior officials.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Carter.

Mr. Greg Carter: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question itself is whether the actual ministers, or individuals within the federal government, the bureaucracies, come to visit the first nations communities to attempt to resolve some of the conditions. Unfortunately, that is very seldom a reality. A lot of our environments and social policies and our programs and guidelines that are developed at the national office and interpreted at the regional level are delivered to the first nations.

So the first nations, to get their message across, have to go out to the district and the regional levels to actually make them aware that there is an actual crisis on the first nations territory. That happens on a regular basis. It is just a reality of the actual response we get back from the individuals we visit at the regional level and at the national level.

We are not permitted, with the existing resources available to us within our mandate—they don't give us an opportunity—to resolve some of the current situations.

Yes, there is a crisis. Yes, we are aware that there's an overcrowded situation, that the conditions of the units are inadequate, that the conditions of the units have a direct impact on the social well-being of the family unit. But within their mandate, they are limited to providing services.

The Chair: Mr. Pfeifer.

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again, Monsieur St-Julien, for your question.

The short answer is no. I would say that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has made better efforts as far as visiting the northern and Inuit communities. In particular, obviously you remember your tour to Nunavut and Nunavik in 1999. So I must certainly congratulate the committee. It has made better efforts as far as visiting our communities is concerned than the respective ministers of Health, DIAND, and CMHC have made.

• 1155

That's not to say they haven't visited at all. I recall the minister responsible for CMHC making a visit last year, I believe, especially to Iqaluit, where I come from.

As far as health goes, I want to cite a Health Canada 1998 report saying that tuberculosis is seven times higher amongst Inuit communities. As far as studies go, yes, we've been studied almost to death. We'd like a different twist to it: studied to being brought back to life instead of studied to death.

Yes, it's really nice that we can have our ministers visit, but it's important not only to hear what we've been saying, but it's more important to listen to what we've been saying.

Yes, we keep making efforts and knocking down the door. It's extremely difficult right now because the Government of Canada's mandate to aboriginal people is primarily on first nations on reserve. The Métis are going through the same recognition problems in regard to the Government of Canada's responsibility or the provincial responsibility to aboriginal Canadians.

In that line of thinking, it's nice that they hear, but it's better when they listen, and better when they make the policy changes and the required budgetary changes. So there's a great political will required to change its fundamental relationship with the Inuit of Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll give Mr. Vellacott his opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Pfeifer, we had the privilege of having some of your colleagues in the office of a colleague of mine the other day, and we tried to get to know and understand a little bit better some of the issues of concern here. We talked about housing as well.

They mentioned the fact of the jurisdictional football, nationally and provincially. Can you expand on that? At this point, that seems to be what's happening a fair bit, and as a result you're stuck or caught in the middle.

Their concern also was that when funding goes from the federal government and gets to, say, even the territory of Nunavut, whether or not that then goes to you or is getting appropriately out to you in these various areas. Obviously that needs to be addressed somehow. Can you comment on how you think that could better serve Inuit people and how to sort that whole jurisdictional thing out?

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: That is a very good question. If I could describe for a minute and expand a little bit on the jurisdictional football question, on the whole federal-provincial-territorial relationship... As we all know, the confederation is made up with a great deal of respect for provincial and territorial authority, so it's extremely difficult for us to be able to get... The federal officials are basically telling us that we have to deal with our province or our territory, but looking at the financial state of affairs for both the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut, the level of funding that's being transferred or the funding formula given to the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut... They all say they don't have enough money to deal with a lot of the social housing problems.

• 1200

As I said earlier, in 1993 the CMHC and the Government of Canada devolved responsibility for social housing to the provinces and territories, particularly for us in the province of Quebec, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland, and Nunavut. That has been an extreme source of frustration for us, because I reiterate the fact that the relationship between the federal government and Inuit, although entrenched in the Constitution, is not at all defined in regard to policy and programs and dedicated funding for Inuit-specific programs and policies.

They keep telling us to go and talk to the province. The federal government has forgotten that it has a fiduciary responsibility, and with that responsibility comes a requirement to allocate the appropriate funding and policy specifications that would help our communities.

Lastly, I would just say that there has been a trend since the creation of Nunavut to the effect that, well, you folks have Nunavut now, so you should be fine. But I need to reiterate that we span several time zones and four provinces and territories. We're not all in Nunavut; we are all over the place.

I hope I've answered your questions, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, you have a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's fine.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't really have any questions for you because you have been very clear but I would like to indicate my support. Let me first of all introduce myself. My name is Ghislain Fournier and I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois has been supporting the aboriginals for a long time. Guy St-Julien will confirm that we have always supported them, and you can trust his word.

Let me first of all congratulate you for your presentations. Your statements were well prepared. It was my feeling that you were speaking from the heart. An example of this, and please correct me if I misunderstood, is when you talked about the homeless and the fact that 37 people were living in a single room, something I consider to be quite unacceptable. After all we are in the year 2001. I imagine that there must have been children, old people, and the occasional sick person, perhaps someone with the flu. Thirty- seven people were cooped up in one room, I was really struck by that. I could hardly believe it. That was something new for me. If I understood you correctly, there were 37 people cooped up in a single room. That is unbelievable and unthinkable.

My friend opposite, Mr. Guy St-Julien—who, as far as I know, is on his fourth mandate because he changed parties at one point—said that his government had always supported you. If, after four mandates, you can tell us that there are still situations where 37 people are sleeping in the same room, I think that the time for high sounding statements and speeches from politicians is over. What we need now is action. I personally intend to make the Bloc Québécois aware of the situations you described to us today at the next meeting of my caucus on Wednesday.

I am happy to be here to replace an excellent colleague, Richard Marceau, who is our party's spokesman on aboriginal affairs. He is a lawyer and he does very good work. We do not intend to replace him permanently, of course, it would be very difficult to do so.

• 1205

You drew our attention to your problems and you can count on my support. Something must be done and must be done quickly. Once again, you can count on my support and I intend to make representations to my political party, the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to deal with one last subject in conclusion.

If I understood you correctly, you referred to confederation. As I see it, the Bloc Québécois is fighting for a return to confederation. If you look the word up in the dictionary, you will see that the term "confederation" implies sovereign states. You could be sovereign and we could be as well. As a matter of fact, I received a file from a new western party calling for Canada to become a confederation of five sovereign states. I think the confederation was changed, not by the people, but by a group of men in collusion with each other. We were part of the British empire and Canada became a federation. We are talking about constitution and federation.

Without embarking on a history lesson, I simply want to say that you made me happy when you talked about confederation. It gave me some hope that we might one day be able to return to a confederation, something I would be very pleased to see.

Once again, I congratulate you on your fine presentation. You are facing serious problems that we politicians must set our minds to and start working on. I think you will agree that something must be done to deal with this situation regardless of political opinions, beliefs and colour. We are all humans and here we are all equal. So we must work together for the sake of humanity. A child, whether he be anglophone, aboriginal, quebecker or francophone, is a human being.

It is unthinkable that we would not be able to work for the welfare of this child. He is entitled to respect and to some comfort. I travel a lot. In spite of my option, that you are aware of, I want say that Ottawa is an ugly city, that Ontario is an ugly province, that the West in not a beautiful region and that Nunavut, which I have visited, is not beautiful. What I've heard from you today, however, is not a nice story. We'll have to do something about it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this time. We are on your side.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Fournier, for your comments.

Mr. Martin, for the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I apologize for being a little late. I'm trying to be at two different committees on the same morning.

I have read the brief, at least the one from the AFN. This committee has been seized on the issue of an aboriginal housing crisis in recent weeks. We heard a very good presentation from Chief Ted Moses and the James Bay Cree at our very last meeting in fact.

I think you're hearing an all-party consensus where we recognize it's not just a housing shortage now, it's a housing emergency. It's bordering on a human rights issue. I believe in previous documents we've had tabled here, people have cited the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which does obviously reference housing as one of those basis human rights.

We've allowed conditions in northern Canada to exist in a way that we would never tolerate anywhere else in the country. It would be an embarrassment to the rest of society if they had those conditions transplanted to downtown Winnipeg, downtown Toronto, or downtown Montreal.

I think you are hearing broad support in this room for a call to action.

I'd like to ask about some of the specifics I'm seeing in this particular brief. I'm interested in the estimation of the immediate need for 22,000 new units.

We heard from the James Bay Cree that there was an immediate need in that part of the world for 2,200 new units for just the James Bay Cree communities. I'm wondering if this isn't low-balling the actual extent of the problem, if you're looking right across the country, with northern Manitoba and other parts of the country.

Also, the dollar figure of $750 million per year, or $7.5 billion over five years, seems like a staggering amount of money to a lot of people. I would ask you to comment on this.

• 1210

Could you not make the argument that there are secondary benefits associated with spending that money? The money spent is not just being lost in some sinkhole in northern Canada. The money will be used to purchase materials from lumberyards or carpet salespeople, and it will be used to create skills development for the local tradespeople needed to build those many thousands of units.

In terms of helping us move this argument forward, could you talk a little bit about not just the actual units being built, but the secondary benefits of spending that money in northern Canada as an investment and some of the secondary benefits that come from it?

It can be either Mr. Carter or Mr. Pfeifer, whoever would like to comment on that.

The Chair: Mr. Carter.

Mr. Greg Carter: Thank you, Madam Chair.

When I was asked to make a presentation in terms of the current situation on the reserve, I wasn't asked to make a presentation on the economic spin-offs that could be created with capital investment. Unfortunately, we didn't get into that argument or that discussion.

The statistics we've presented, in terms of low-balling the existing statistics, unfortunately, are at an agreeable and acceptable level with data provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

If you used the data provided by first nations agencies, first nations regional bodies who derive the actual data, for example, it would be 2,200 units in that one area. Then if you compare it with the statistics the Department of Indian affairs or the CMHC actually compiled, there is a difference.

One of the arguments we have had over the years is what statistics and data are actually acceptable: those of first nations or a bureaucratically developed formula. We made a similar presentation to Minister Martin. This presentation was on what could actually be an acceptable level right now.

In terms of the $7.7 billion over a five-year period, it went into the actual needs for that capital management database. Those statistics are federally driven, not first nations driven.

The second component is the dollar figure in terms of investments. As the Inuit indicated, handouts are not what we're asking for. We're talking about comparability, ability, and opportunities within first nations territories to provide the economic spin-offs.

Over the past number of years, it has been well documented that of all the resources that go into first nations territories, or are budgeted within the federal government, impact is created with the type of economy you've created in first nations territories with the money invested there.

In some first nations communities, there are excellent economic spin-offs: job creation, human resources, the local economy, and whatnot. Other first nations are in remote areas and do not have access to some of the benefits of training programs or a capacity to take technology transfers. We will discuss that too at another time.

The economic spin-offs are not only in investment. We need this dollar figure because that's the bottom line. It's an investment in our future for the growth of our children and our economy.

You come back and say help create this argument so that comments can be made. We can do that in terms of creating the transfer of technology, the actual manufacture and distribution within our environment, and the actual legislative changes that could create an opportunity for first nations to create these business entrepreneurs. For example, with the business development, there are some impacts of the Indian Act and some barriers we face. Access to private capital would be a fine example that we can discuss today.

First nations have the ability. First nations do have the ability within the first nations to purchase their own units. Unfortunately, right now, for access to capital, without a ministerial guarantee and the rubber stamp of the Department of Indian Affairs, we can't do it.

How do we get away from that kind of an example? How do we entice the private sector, as an example, from the United States with tax credits for development and community development corporations? We have to get into this part of the solution rather than invest in the social ills. I hear exactly what you're saying.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: We're at the limit of our seven minutes. We'll go back and forth in a bit and we'll get back to you.

I'd like to give an opportunity to Mr. Hubbard and hear his information.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1215

It's certainly disturbing to hear some of the statistics we've heard today. We've heard about situations not only in terms of the communities but also in terms of what I think Mr. Martin referred to, which is the downtown areas. We have a lot of homelessness among first nations people who have left their home communities and moved to the cities, such as Toronto, Regina, or Winnipeg, wherever it might be.

You also point out that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been involved very much in recent years.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the mould situation. I'm a bit surprised that it came up at the national level. I do hear a good deal about that back home. It appears, Mr. Carter, that your group has done some analysis of this. What disturbs me is that we have allocations of money for housing, but rather than creating new units, some of that money has to be used to deal with this problem of mould. I'm wondering whether we have designed poor housing in the past or you've purchased poor housing. How national is this problem? We talk about spending anywhere from $20,000 to as much as $40,000 a unit to clean up this mould problem, which some first nations communities are experiencing. Mr. Carter, is it something you see right across the country? Does it deal with design? Is it much greater than in our other communities? Do other people have measurements? Is it a problem of all people or just particular to the first nations?

Mr. Greg Carter: We have studied the issue of mould quite extensively and how you actually manage the mould crisis and in what environment it has an opportunity to grow. The mould crisis isn't specific to the first nations territories. It blankets Canada. There is mould within different environments both on and off reserve.

The unfortunate thing in the first nations territories, when you look at the quality of the units constructed in the past, is the inability of first nations to ensure the level of master building code requirements in order to eliminate or to manage the mould problem.

The existing resources and the subsidies we've put in are supposed to go toward building units, but, unfortunately, we're not building units. We're taking those dollars and renovating because of the mould crisis or using them for other administrative functions. Renovating versus new construction—making this choice is a common occurrence in first nations territories.

Poor design also plays a part in having mould in first nations territories. For example, in the Winnipeg area, mould was caused by the flooding of the Roseau River, and it was a crisis situation. In some of the northern communities, there is a lack of air movement. We can't open the doors and whatnot during the winter because of the air movement within the envelope of the unit and the quality of construction.

When you're building units based on allocations and subsidy levels, you're not looking at quality. You're looking at quantity. If I have an allocation for three units and my current need is for five, I will forgo installing a mechanical system that would remedy the mould situation, some of the actual ins and outs, such as an extra window, or a ventilation system in order to get an extra unit. Some of those choices are being made in first nations territories. Unfortunately, subsidy levels dictate the quality and level of standards that are used on reserve.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Madam Chair, just to conclude, I would hope your committee would certainly raise this observation. Some of the units that I know of are less than ten years old. They were not made by your own people but were purchased from significant manufacturers. I would hope that somehow in your research and in your work with various government agencies you would try to look at methods that would alleviate this problem and that would provide money for construction, rather than for remedial measures that really take away from the number of units you have available to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1220

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Vellacott for the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question for Greg. It's with regard to the obstacles that seem to be in the way of adequate dollars coming in. I also mentioned this at the last committee meeting. A band councillor on a reserve in my riding, who is an entrepreneur, made the point that he could build some units, but the fact that you can't have private ownership stands in the way of private development. Regrettably, I think we'll always have a need for social housing. What would be your views on the possibility of private ownership of a house and the land on the reserve and the ways that creates a blockage for people and for banks to be able to invest? I hear some expressions of that. I want your direct response to that. Do you think that private ownership in fee simple on reserves is a possibility and might do something to help alleviate or resolve some of the housing stock problems?

Mr. Greg Carter: We have discussed this in a couple of working groups with the federal departments. How do we actually promote private investment? What are the actual barriers in terms of the guarantee and mortgage insurance? We discussed the market in, for example, downtown Ottawa versus on reserves and how the people who are going to invest in them can get back a return on their investment.

The acceptable practice within a region is one of the issues we have to discuss within the first nations communities.

What we're looking for is the ability to increase opportunities for private ownership. For example, if I'm in my first nation community right now and I want to build my own house, my first nation government may not be eligible to receive a ministerial guarantee, so I'm not afforded that opportunity. I can't go to the bank. How can I go to the bank without asking the Department of Indian Affairs to guarantee the loan? That's what we're looking at right now, to be given that opportunity to create a land trust agreement. How do we get around different areas? The current legislation tells why we can't do it, but what we're saying is, what do we have to do so that we can? That's where we're at right now. Hopefully, private ownership is the direction we're going to go in.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Greg, if you own that land on your reserve in fee simple, you could get a loan from the regular banks at commercial rates to build the home you want. But right now that's not a possibility because you can't own that land privately. Is that correct?

Mr. Greg Carter: Yes. I'll say that would depend on the response from the chief and the council. They have to accept it and say, Mr. Carter, this acre lot assignment will be your fee simple. It may be an acceptable practice in certain areas, but it may not be in different communities.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're not opposed to ownership on a reserve in fee simple.

Mr. Greg Carter: Personally, I'm not, but there will be—

The Chair: I want to remind the members that it gets difficult for the minutes when I don't get an opportunity to say the name of who's speaking.

I'd also like to remind the members that we're now in the three-minute segment of going back and forth. You're now at four minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll have to wrap up, then. I'll just get his response to that.

The Chair: Could we have a very quick response, Mr. Carter?

Mr. Greg Carter: I am not opposed. I would encourage it. It's just a matter of acceptance within the regions.

The Chair: If I could just add a clarification to this issue of home ownership, in the far north it is very expensive to own your own home. Energy, fuel, and electricity are very expensive. Even though there are double-income families wanting to own their own home, with all of the other expenses, it's almost impossible for them. So you're talking about a very small population in the isolated communities. There is some home ownership, but it's also very difficult to encourage people to go into home ownership when the operating costs are usually beyond the budget of young couples.

• 1225

I'll give Mr. St-Julien an opportunity now with his three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's talk about the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and the report Gathering Strength. It contains lots of examples, such as:

Let us agree with the signatory nations to treaties on a contemporary interpretation of the existing treaty provisions relating to housing.

Farther on, the following remark is made:

Our sense of welfare depends to a large extent on our access to good quality housing.

It should be noted that in 1999, minister Alfonso Gagliano and the former minister of Indian Affairs, Ms. Jane Stewart were successful, through their leadership, in obtaining $5 million to build houses in Nunavik. The Quebec Government of Lucien Bouchard provided an additional $5 million. Last year, that is the year 2000, Nunavik obtained $50 million from the federal government and the same amount from the Quebec Government following the visit of the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, to Kuujjuaq. That is a fine result.

There is something that strikes me as strange, though. In all the Aboriginal communities in Canada and the Inuit villages in Canada—it's the same thing in my constituency—the non-Aboriginal population all live in fine houses, the teachers and the nurses. We agree that the people who come to live in these communities should be well served.

There is no shortage of housing for non-Aboriginals in Cree communities, in First Nation communities and Inuit ones. I know that we are proud that the teachers, doctors and nurses have housing and that they provide help to the community.

It's clear that the government does provide assistance. It provides assistance for construction but that is not enough. There's one thing I'd like to mention in conclusion and then ask you a question about jobs. If we do build housing, then our Aboriginal and Inuit friends should be given the opportunity to obtain jobs as foremen, carpenters, etc. There have to be long-term jobs during the years when construction is in progress. It is not enough for Southern companies to come and pocket the profits with nothing to show for our friends.

You know, our Cree and Inuit friends, are skilled in building houses. The Government of Canada is helping the construction of housing to avoid a serious short-term crisis. But the situation will be getting worse in two years. We must also create jobs. Do you agree with me?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Carter, you have a few seconds to answer the two-and-a-half-minute question.

Mr. Greg Carter: The opportunity has always been there. Right now dependency is rampant in the first nations communities. In some of the isolated communities we have that ability already, and the actual technology transfer has occurred. But definitely promote that activity as well, and support it.

The Chair: I think that takes care of your three minutes.

I just want to remind the committee that in the list of recommendations in the last economic development study this committee did, one was to ensure that provision be made for training and employment opportunities for aboriginal people in any housing and infrastructure or repair programs. I think we addressed that well in the last committee hearings.

I don't know if Mr. Fournier wants to use up his three minutes.

Mr. Martin, I think you can pursue your line of questioning, which I cut you off from the last time.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

One thing I'd like to add to the statements made earlier about mould—and maybe it's been stated elsewhere in the report—is that I think one aspect of the whole mould problem is a byproduct of the overcrowded conditions, too. Humans living in a house generate moisture. When you have 15 people living in a house designed for five, you have three times the volume of moisture.

• 1230

And the whole R-2000 system... sometimes the cookie-cutter approach to the type of housing being built across the north just isn't suitable. If you are building an R-2000 home, which is sealed like living in a bread bag, if you don't have a sophisticated air-exchange system, that moisture is trapped and it's a recipe for unhealthy conditions. I just wanted to comment on that.

I'd like to add something to the debate. Coming back to this figure of $739 million per year, if there is an argument in this room that this is an insurmountable amount of money, I would ask members of the committee to remember that the EI system alone in Canada is showing a surplus of $750 million per month. So it's not for lack of money that we're not seeing this emergency being addressed. I don't know what kind of story you're getting from the government or from DIAND, but if anybody tries to say that we simply don't have the money... every month the EI program alone is showing a surplus of $750 million. One month's surplus of EI would solve your yearly needs for housing, according to these figures.

Maybe that's a comment more than a question, but I would invite input. Perhaps Mr. Pfeifer would like to comment on either.

The Chair: Mr. Pfeifer, I know you didn't get a chance to respond the last time either, so I'll give you the floor.

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for your comments.

To your earlier point, I just wanted to add one thing. It's about the cost.

We would say that if we build more units we're going to reduce the cost of everything else: the cost to health, the cost to the social envelope. And it's doable, to develop a scenario of the cost of doing nothing versus the cost of doing something—the total cost to government, and obviously the cost to Canadian taxpayers.

What I do want to say as far as your last comment about the EI surplus is concerned is that I certainly don't want to comment too much on what we should do with the EI surplus. We haven't explored well enough what the pros and cons and ramifications would be. But what I did want to say as far as the cost goes... I mentioned earlier, before you arrived, Mr. Martin, the need for over 8,800 new units required for the Inuit communities of Canada.

As I said earlier, the average cost of building a new home is $100,000. Multiply 8,800 by $100,000... well, it seems pretty large. Where will it come from? There are options we can look at, but I appreciate Mr. Carter's remarks earlier about partnership. There needs to be new and innovative ways of looking at this. In this day and age we have heard about the $11 billion surplus, about the EI surplus. That is something we can perhaps tap into. Perhaps we should, but I can't say, because we haven't examined it in detail.

What I do want to say is that when we brought in the national Inuit members and the stakeholders, we brought in presidents of construction companies as well; we brought in the private sector. They are extremely interested in partnering and coming up with innovative ways of financing, such as better opportunities for bridge financing for those companies, which can create capacity as well.

We've been exploring some of this, and as I said at the outset of my remarks, we have completed a study and a final report. It's just on its way to the printer's next week. At that time we certainly want to provide an opportunity to share it with the committee. It outlines specific recommendations and possible solutions in terms of the financing and the total cost required to address this housing crisis of ours. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Binet.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, good morning to everyone.

As I was explaining to another group at our meeting on Tuesday, I am the owner of a renovation centre, so I am familiar with construction problems.

• 1235

An acquaintance of mine is a contractor who has been working in construction in the North for the past 25 years with the Inuit and the Cree. It would appear that the money problems are partially solved. It is not easy to start large-scale construction overnight. First of all the contractors have to prepare their plans and submit a tender. Then they have to assemble the building materials and send them by boat. They must make sure that every thing is included because if there is anything missing, then it's a big problem. Are there enough contractors able to immediately start on a large-scale housing project? Are there plans? There is no doubt about the crisis but a plan is always necessary to start construction and to make a bid. There have to be contractors in a position to tender and for that to occur, there must be plans. Is the organization of the work in a sufficiently advanced stage with respect to plans and staffing? Is it possible to make arrangements for the immediate future if the money problem is partially solved? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'll start with Mr. Carter.

Mr. Greg Carter: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question is, when you go through the proposal, you're looking at an actual proposal-type thing like $740 million a year. That's creating the opportunities where there's an understanding that some first nations do have that capacity and ability to actually take resources right now to throw at a project. There are regions and first nations within regions that may not have that capacity. That actual training requirement and capacity to develop has to occur at a moderate rate.

So we're not saying 22,000 up front. We're taking it over a five-year period, so we're not slowing down those who have the ability, and for those who don't have that ability, they're encouraged then to create their capacity up to the latter parts, where within the third or fourth or fifth year they have that ability within their environment. But yes, I say we can compare different regions and different first nations. Some do and some don't.

The Chair: Mr. Pfeifer.

Mr. Pitseolak Pfeifer: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Binet, for your question.

I'll give you an example of how quickly we can mobilize. During the ramp-up of the creation of Nunavut, I had the opportunity to be part of a birthright development corporation, Iliqvik Corporation, representing Baffin Island. There was an opportunity and there was a requirement to build the extra required infrastructure—office and housing infrastructure—for the ramp-up of Nunavut. So what happened was Public Works and Government Services Canada approached us and said, “Could you folks get together and build? Here's an opportunity for you to build 400 houses and offices over the next four years.”

What we were able to do then was mobilize all birthright development corporations out of Nunavut, and there are four. What we did was come together and form a new corporation called Nunavut Construction Corporation. I developed a request for a proposal for financing. We held auditions with all the major banks of Canada. What we were looking for was $100 million worth of financing, not only for construction financing but bridge or take-out financing as well. So we were able to do that in a matter of three months.

Since that time, this Nunavut Construction Corporation has built itself into a permanent entity and has been able to compete with major developers that are in the north, which are primarily owned by non-Inuit contractors. There is a growing number of construction companies from small to medium-sized, but as well, as illustrated, we do have a large-sized construction corporation that is represented by all of the birthright development corporations out of Nunavut.

The requirement, however, is to be able to extend the life of these construction projects. Now through my experience in Nunavut, the boom has basically been... they're building 100 houses or 200 houses, and it's good for two years. But then what happens after that? There's a lull, or there's a lack of new construction. That doesn't allow companies to be able to be consistent and to build their own capacity or their own equity base.

• 1240

So we do absolutely have a growing number of carpenters, but we are also working with more entrepreneurs from the small, medium, and large companies, and we do partner with southern companies as well. So both southern Canadian companies, as well as new northern construction companies, have been able to enjoy a lot of those types of benefits.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I don't see any more members who have put in their names for questioning. Mr. Martin?

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could have one more brief slot, I'd just like to point out that I just came from an interesting conference being hosted by the AFN and the Métis and the ITC, dealing with the new liberalized free trade area of the Americas. The theme of it was the influence it will have on aboriginal and indigenous people.

One interesting point that came up, though, when we were talking about housing, is that countries like Chile have plans to build 200,000 units of social housing in the next five years. A nation not as developed as Canada has plans to build 200,000. Peru, Argentina, Mexico, and Guatemala spoke up there. These countries have social housing programs that make Canada look like we're dead in the water, to tell you the truth.

I guess I'd ask your input, because it is a theme going on in the next three days with the very organizations you represent. Do you see any impact, in terms of losing our economic sovereignty to international trade agreements, in the ability of this country to deal with aboriginal issues—for instance, the transfer of self-government rights or changes to the financial relationship the Government of Canada has with first nations? Do you see any influence of these international trade agreements on those changes that you will obviously be interested in through the royal commission, or whatever else?

The Chair: Chief Young.

Chief Kenneth Young: Thank you for the question.

The international agreements that are in place in Canada—for instance, the free trade agreement—have an economic and legal impact on the rights of our people. For instance, the softwood problem we're experiencing with the American people because of allegations by the lumber industry in the United States that our lumber business community is subsidized unfairly is having an impact, not only on the economy of Canada but on the economy of our people and the right of access to supplies for building homes at a fair market value.

I think that in the business of international agreements, wherever they impact the rights of our people, our people should be allowed to address them. That hasn't happened, for instance, with respect to the free trade agreement. A prime example is the issue of water. Water is a natural resource, and yet the free trade agreement is defining it as a commodity, which is going to affect our people in terms of determining how this water is going to be used and how it's going to be marketed.

So these agreements that are being negotiated by the federal government in Canada—for instance, opening up the world economy to an international agreement that will make multinationals more powerful than government—is very disturbing for us. And I believe our people have to be given the opportunity to address this very important matter.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Chief Young.

I think this brings us to the end of our presentations from the witnesses. I would like to thank Mr. Pfeifer, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Carter, and Chief Young for being with us this morning and being able to present the national picture on this housing crisis for aboriginal peoples in Canada.

• 1245

I would like to thank the committee members for being here this morning. We have a few housekeeping issues to deal with. I believe Mr. Vellacott would like to introduce a motion at this time.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As members of the committee know from a steering committee about a week ago, this coming Tuesday we are having DIAND and CMHC here. That was the agreement.

My motion was put to the committee appropriately in French and in English, and there was a bit of a discussion. I had been at a doctor's appointment and not able to be at that meeting, but they went ahead with having the housing people in.

I think there's some openness to this. It's just specifying a little more that when they come to us on Tuesday, they will at a minimum cover these things. They may cover (d), (e), (f), and several other things as well.

I think the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Finlay, was favourable or open to this. It's just adding a little specificity in some areas, on the public policy objectives. Maybe they would cover that anyway; maybe they would cover (b) and (c), but it's just a requirement that they touch on those things at least or review them. They will no doubt cover many other things as well.

So that was the intent of the motion. It's basically dovetailing and synchronising with the fact that we have these folks here next Tuesday in committee. If you would be so kind as to give this consideration and vote on it or approve it... I didn't sense any particular objection from Mr. Finlay.

The Chair: So you're moving this motion.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm moving this motion.

Have we technically moved it when I submitted it in French? When was the moving?

The Clerk: You have to move it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I move it now. It has had its proper notice in French and English, and so on.

It's not an earth-shaker. They're coming anyway. It's just to be specific in these areas, and they can cover additional stuff. The committee clerk would direct the department to that effect.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, I'll ask you to read your motion, please.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I will simply read it. It was translated into French.

I move that no later than May 15—well, obviously we're going to be way ahead of that—(a) we consider and report on the programs of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs that will be administered in the year ahead by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for aboriginal people, reviewing the public policy objectives of each program; (b) their effectiveness in meeting these objectives; and (c) the efficiency by which they're delivered; and that to facilitate this, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs be called to brief the committee by April 30 on these programs.

The only new things here are (a), (b), and (c), which we're listing to be a little more specific. We're going to be well ahead of April 30; it's covered.

I think it's straightforward, and I'm asking if, in your wishes, that would synchronize what we're intending these folks to do when they come on Tuesday. If so, please approve it.

• 1250

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could speak to the motion briefly, I have no problem at all in trying to give some guidance as to what our expectations are when witnesses come here and in telling them what those are. But I find that item (c) is almost a little offensive. I don't think the witnesses are in any position to judge how efficient their programs are, and to ask them to make that determination is almost implying or insinuating that they're less than efficient.

So if I were to vote in favour of this motion, I'd like to see a friendly amendment to strike item (c) from the motion, and then I don't think I'd have any problem concurring with items (a) and (b).

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It was taken from the Standing Orders, some of the lingo that is used there. Particularly in this case, we appealed to Standing Order 81(7). So it wasn't stuff that was so much—

Mr. Pat Martin: In the actual language, that would be like me asking you, how efficient a member of Parliament are you? I wouldn't ask that question if I didn't think you were less than efficient. I think it's insulting.

I think the tone of it could be taken in a way that could be viewed as a negative sort of thing to ask. If I were to vote in favour of this, I would ask you to strike item (c), as a friendly amendment, and then I have no problem with it.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is something my colleagues and I were talking about. We do not have the French version and we would like to read the text in both official languages. Aside from that, do we have quorum?

[English]

The Chair: No, we don't.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would like the other members to be present and be made aware of the motion. We can wait until the next meeting.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Was an additional French translation done here, besides the one that was sent out?

The Clerk of the Committee: I gave it to the interpreters. They needed it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

This is upon us on Tuesday.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, but we don't have quorum. I'd like the other members to be present. There are several committees sitting this morning and members may belong to different committees. That is why some of them were unable to be present. We all have the same experience, whether we're members of the Bloc Québécois or of our party. In the absence of quorum, I prefer we wait until the next meeting to discuss this matter.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, they meet at the next meeting.

I don't understand what the issue or the problem would be in the fact that we're having them here next Tuesday. You see, Mr. St-Julien, if it's next Tuesday that we deal with it, that would be after the meeting at which they've already appeared. Do you see what I mean? So next Tuesday is too late.

I had tabled this last week, actually, and people received both French and English versions.

Mr. Finlay, the parliamentary secretary, had no particular problem with this in terms of its wording. As I said, we have just taken this from the department's own materials and in terms of Standing Order 81(7). So if there's a difficulty... I'm not sure—there's nothing sneaky going on here, if that's your concern.

People are departing, but if quorum is not an issue that you want to raise...

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am able to read it but I am alone right now and I don't know exactly what the parliamentary secretary said. You will be able to put the questions directly to the witnesses next week, even if there is not a motion.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Did we deal with this in a steering committee, or was it a committee of the whole, last Thursday when I came in late from a doctor's appointment?

The Chair: This particular motion? No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Was the whole issue of the agenda, the future days and what we were doing, dealt with by the whole committee, or was it a steering committee?

The Chair: It was the whole committee.

I don't think there's any reason you can't address these in your questions to the officials who will be coming on Tuesday. If you're not satisfied with the round of answers you get, then I would suggest you bring it up as a motion, and with a quorum so that we can vote on it. We're not able to do this today.

• 1255

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In fairness to them, they obviously... this motion was passed at the beginning of the meeting, and they've already lined up their presentation in a certain way. So at that juncture it's a pretty moot point; it really means nothing. They have not had adequate time to prepare along these lines, if they had deemed it fit to go in that direction.

The Chair: The way we had decided to hear the witnesses on the scope of housing, I think they have a general idea of what we were requesting: we want to know what programs are there now.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, I haven't seen the minutes then. Is this reflected to them in terms of specific detail? My concern is that when we invite somebody in the future, we give them some direction. They're dealing with a massive department.

The Chair: That was given, as far as we know. We said, right at the beginning, that we don't want to do any more studies; we don't want to rehash what's already been done. We want to deal with this and find a plan of action. The only way we can do that is to know what's already been done for the community.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: True, but has that been directed? I'm a little clued out here, and our clerk may be able to help. I think you're talking about the general broad-banner thing, but when the DIAND and CMHC come Monday, did we direct them along certain lines? If we did, then I'm in the dark about it.

The Clerk: To speak to housing.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. That's pretty broad. That's why I said that specifics would have been better.

Anyway, we've lost our quorum. I guess the lesson for me is that next time, when we actually have quorum, I would probably insist on a motion. It holds our witnesses up a bit, but... Maybe, Madam Chair, we can beg for your assistance on that matter.

The Chair: You're free to bring forward a motion.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I should have. I thought I was being gracious by not holding them up, but it could have been disposed of very quickly—I think we had the support of other members here. It's an innocuous matter, but it may be helpful for the department.

So you live and learn. Next time I'll insist that we do it off the top of the day.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. I know that Mr. Vellacott does a good job and it is unfortunate that his motion cannot be put to a vote today. But there is something that he can do immediately. He can inform the three ministers and the three departments he intends to question about these matters next week. He can fax his questions immediately to the three ministers and the officials will receive them. As a Member of Parliament, you are entitled to fax your questions immediately to be answered by next week. You will have a head start over us. That is a way around it. I know that you do a good job and that's why the situation is unfortunate. But I know that the Chair also does a good job along with the remainder of the team. You have the opportunity to fax your questions immediately. There are already drafted. Why don't you send them to the three ministers right away.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for your expertise, Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But I have no power to direct them. That's for the committee to do, in terms of the guidelines we want—there are certain general parameters. As an individual member, I can ask questions, but I'm not in a position, as the committee would be, to say that these are some of the parameters and we should at least cover these things, and anything additional we choose. The committee would have the power to do so.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: But you are entitled, even if you are only a backbencher like me, to send them off immediately to the minister who is required to give them to his officials. He has no choice.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Again, I say that every member can ask the witnesses any questions they want. If you're not satisfied with the answers you get, Mr. Vellacott, you are free to bring this motion up again.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.