Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate MP Vaughan's intervention here and for citing his particular desire to make sure that there is a special focus within this study. I will say, though, that there are more views on this than simply that.
While I appreciate his raising it for those who feel that a fourth stream is important, I also will say that there are some areas that may not neatly fit within the parameters he's set out.
For example, CMHC does fund different parts and touches upon different programs on reserve that don't often get studied by any group in Parliament. I would also simply suggest that for us not to be talking about urban indigenous housing on reserve.... Because there are many different permutations in British Columbia, I think there are special considerations that may not be captured under an individual housing program.
I have Westbank First Nation in my riding. In B.C., there are many other unique cases where there is a mix of different housing and housing policy. With full respect, I would hope that the witnesses MP Vaughan brings are able to bring out those aspects that he thinks are lacking in our current policy. I also want to reiterate this for people who I serve directly or who are in from British Columbia who are in urban indigenous reserves, which I think is important.
I just want to make sure that we are not scoping out because if we bring witnesses and suddenly analysts start saying that we can't count any of that testimony, as meaningful as it is.... Especially if we are planning on flying people out, to disregard their testimony on either CMHC or some of the existing programs or somehow how some rules don't align....
I will give you a good example, Mr. Chair. Sometimes a first nation will be given other lands that are not part of the reserve, yet they will have housing on the reserve. I think that we need to understand how those situations and different regulations line up when you have those cases.
I see some nodding here. I do appreciate that he is receptive to that. I just don't want to have it where the analysts says that it's great testimony, but we can't use a word of it. That would disempower my constituents.