Public Accounts Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Gina Wilson]

We don't use outdated census data at Indigenous Services Canada.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Tremblay, would you comment?

[Michel Tremblay]

The formula is based on a tripartite agreement we've reached with Indigenous Services Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. We have not changed the formula over the years.

Having said that, I will say that we are not going to unilaterally change that formula. You've seen that we've agreed in the report that we will look at it and work with our partners to come up with a new formula. We will not, in the spirit of reconciliation, unilaterally change the formula, so we will be working with our partners on that.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'm puzzled in terms of the allocation of funds, which favoured the first nations with the most resources and allowed them to submit better projects.

How did that happen? Why were communities that really needed the funding not addressed or prioritized first?

[Michel Tremblay]

I can reply.

In terms of the residential rehabilitation assistance program and the on-reserve non-profit rental program, which are the focus of the Auditor General's report, the allocation to provinces and regions are based on the formula you've mentioned. From there, it's first nations communities and tribal councils that decide the allocations. They are the ones making the call on what they consider priorities and needs in their communities.

We think that is totally appropriate; they know best what their communities need.

[Gina Wilson]

I would add that our analysis does demonstrate that we allocate and prioritize communities with the poorest conditions. We only partially accepted the Auditor General's recommendation there because we didn't agree with the methodology the AG used to come to the conclusion that first nations with the poorest housing conditions received the least funding.

It's a matter of methodologies and of different approaches. Ultimately, when we explore this again with our partners, we will defer to that process. We will happily bring the Auditor General's methodology and our methodology and any other options, and we'll develop that with first nations.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Ms. Hogan, did you want to comment on that?

[Karen Hogan]

I will ask Glenn to jump in for sure.

What we did was look at the communities that had 100 housing units or less, and when there were 75% or more homes in the community that they had self-assessed as in need of major repair, we put them in the poorest bucket. In the others, less than 75% of their houses needed to be replaced or needed major repair. When we look at the average overall in those communities, it was clear to us that those with the poorest conditions—those where more than 75% of their homes needed repair—received, on average, less funding than communities of similar size.

I don't know if there's more detail you would like that maybe Glenn could provide about our determination of that status.

[Glenn Wheeler, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Mr. Chair, to add to the Auditor General's point, the data we used was pulled from the department's community infrastructure and housing annual report. It was the department's own data on the state of housing in communities.

To add a broader point, I think this finding ties in nicely to our finding on capacity, which shows that smaller first nations often don't have the capacity to manage housing that larger first nations have. It ties into the importance of working with communities that do have greater needs to increase their capacity to manage housing.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I also recall seeing in the report that a housing manager was provided for those with larger housing populations, rather than those with smaller communities and perhaps a greater need.

[Gina Wilson]

Chair, I can speak a bit about the housing subsidy program that we announced this year from budget 2022. It included $157 million to support housing managers on reserve and $66 million over three years, beginning this year, for training and certification in the provision of technical services.

I'm quite certain that those first nations housing managers will be trained and supported to fill out applications and reports as one of the functions of their jobs. We're optimistic that you'll see progress on that as it pertains to capacity, applications and so on for those with lower capacity.

There are differentiated levels of capacity in communities, for sure, and we see this as one way to address them.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On that note, there's been a notable shift in the approach this government has taken compared to previous governments when it comes to programs and services for indigenous peoples. It's one more focused on self-determination.

Can you give us a sense of how this approach to housing investments and programming has changed since 2015? What are the next steps to further self-determination?

[Nelson Barbosa, Director General, Regional Operations, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you for the question.

I'd probably point to partnership as a response to that question. As it was noted in the Auditor General's report, we were proud to work with the Assembly of First Nations and all first nations on the establishment of and the adherence to the 2018 Assembly of First Nations housing and infrastructure strategy. That was developed in partnership with first nations, as were the application and the formula for the aforementioned housing management subsidy, which was done in partnership.

As Deputy Wilson mentioned in her opening remarks, ultimately the management of housing affairs is the purview and the right of first nations. We are proud supporters of first nations in those self-determined affairs, and we're an investor in those affairs. In the last fiscal year that ended just a few days ago, the department spent the most it ever has on infrastructure, and we are on track to spend more this year.

Absolutely, the need is great. Absolutely, we have work to do, and we thank the Auditor General for her report. However, I would say the most significant change that we've seen from 2015 is one of partnership and ensuring that the self-determined goals of first nations are led by first nations themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time.

I now give the floor to Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné for six minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Madame Auditor General, thank you for your very informative report.

Let’s summarize the situation. Several billions of dollars were invested into Indigenous housing over the last few years, and yet there seems to be no results. That said, there’s a slight improvement in terms of repairs. Since 2015‑2016, the rate of housing requiring repair went down by one percentage point. As for the percentage of housing requiring replacement, in contrast, it went up by a percentage point during that same period. So, many people here, those listening and, above all, our friends among the First Nations, who are the most affected, are entitled to ask what this money was good for.

Fundamentally, if we have the humility and intellectual honesty needed to ask the right questions, we must reflect on the government’s approach to resolving problems experienced by First Nations. At best, this approach seems lacking; at worst, it is harmful.

I would very much like for the deputy minister—whom I’ve been watching for a while—to tell me what she thinks about the approach used. I would like her to tell me if we can completely redefine the federal government’s approach, from A‑to‑Z. That way, we could finally stop pumping in money that is doing no good whatsoever. We have to think of using an approach based on capacity building. This type of approach is in fact used in other areas, where it works better, and I will ask questions about that. I’m talking here about an approach where Indigenous people can build and finance their houses themselves. It might be a less colonialist approach.

I would very much like to hear Ms. Wilson’s opinion on that.

[Gina Wilson]

It’s not just a matter of additional funding to build more houses in First Nations communities.

There’s greater openness to local First Nations owning their own homes. I would even say that, with the help of funding, more and more people living on reserve can afford part or all of the cost of a house.

There are indeed members of First Nations who need social housing, as is the case everywhere in the country, because their income isn’t enough to become homeowners.

That said, funding infrastructure on reserve can also be useful.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Ms. Wilson, my time is short, so I will specify that I was talking about completely redefining the federal government’s approach. I wasn’t talking about funding to access property ownership. We see that the situation is disastrous and hardly improving at all.

[Gina Wilson]

I’m always willing to hear recommendations, opinions and advice that could lead to changes or new policies.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I agree that some opinions and advice can lead to small changes. However, what’s needed now is a radical change in the federal government’s approach.

Based on the numbers, Quebec is doing better. There may be potential solutions to consider there. Have you looked into them? There are some truly interesting potential solutions, like the national Yänonhchia’ Indigenous Housing Finance Network, which works with the Native Commercial Credit Corporation, the McConnell Foundation, and other financial institutions so that Indigenous people can achieve home ownership, as well as build their own homes. Looking at the numbers, we see that it’s working better in Quebec.

So, why not change the paradigm? We have to stop acting like the federal government is the benevolent head of the family who sends money to members of First Nations so that they can house themselves. The federal government should redefine its approach to leverage capacity building. That is what’s needed.

[Gina Wilson]

I approve of your proposal and am inclined to receive suggestions leading to a transformation in collaboration with First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations, or other First Nations organizations. I am open to those ideas.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madame Auditor General, within the federal government, have you seen any real will to build First Nations’ capacity or, as I was describing, do you instead see an approach where we invest a lot of money to little effect?

[Karen Hogan]

I will answer your question in two parts.

First, when we spoke with Indigenous communities during our audit, they very clearly told us that the commitment was improving, but there wasn’t really any negotiation. They sometimes felt that the government came to the table with a firmly pre-established approach. Based on the current approach, they have to apply through multiple programs, and they find that very difficult. That's why creating the position of housing manager was essential.

Second, the government's current policies and practices in relation to Indigenous people were in place before making certain commitments regarding reconciliation, as well as those included in the United Nations program. If these policies and practices do not change, it's very difficult for the government to say it will now take on new commitments.

That is why I am therefore asking for the implementation of a fundamentally different approach to Indigenous people. We have to stop telling them that programs exist for them, and that all they have to do is express their needs and send their applications via these programs. It is truly necessary to implement a different approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Desjarlais for six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As many members of the team that's present here today know, for the better part of my time in Parliament I've been disappointed with what I have noticed to be a very real and very serious level of neglect for first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

To be very frank, I'm horrified and disgusted with some of the answers presented today, such as using indigenous people's very valid and legitimate right to self-determination as an excuse to not update a funding formula, something as basic as that. You wouldn't imagine a first nation out there that would oppose such an update. What first nation out there would oppose the updating of a formula that would give them more money for the critical needs they have?

For that excuse, Mr. Tremblay, I cannot accept that a government would act that way. One of the most nefarious and deceitful things a bureaucracy could do to hurt a population is to simply suggest that a trilateral discussion was had and it required the consent of all parties in order to update a funding formula. My goodness—that is structural racism. When we speak about structural racism, that's how it looks.

Communities where I'm from in Alberta are so dramatically underfunded that they receive only $19 million for housing while the Auditor General points out very rightly that if the formula were simply updated, if someone just took a look, they would say, “You know what? There is an emergency with respect to housing in first nations communities.” We all acknowledge that.

This is an easy tool we can use. Not even the low-hanging fruit was an option for CMHC or for Indigenous Services Canada. I'm heartbroken. I'm absolutely heartbroken by this tragedy that first nations have to continuously be blamed for their own housing needs continues to unfold in Canada. I've reviewed the departmental plan submitted to this committee in relation to this study, and it simply suggests that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples suggests that these people have the right to self-determination. That right to self-determination right now is being abused in order to justify the material losses of first nations, Métis and Inuit people. That's simply unacceptable.

I know that at the end of this committee meeting, just as I said at the last committee meeting, you're all going to go back and it's going to be business as usual, and the AFN will continue to raise the alarm.

You spoke about self-determination. I want to thank the Steering Committee on Technical Services Advisory Group for Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 in the Alberta region, who have asked me to plead and to demand answers and accountability for these really basic levels of what I believe is extreme racism.

The minister was mandated to develop a strategy to close the infrastructure gap by 2030. I believe you mentioned that report from 2018 and suggested that it was co-developed. I accept that point. However, I understand that 2030 is only six years away. These nations on part of Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 territories want to know how Canada is intending to fund closing the gap that exists by 2030. They want to know how. They have no confidence in their ability to work with the government to get these things done. The AG has said it will be nearly impossible to close the gap by 2030.

In addition to that, by 2040, the AFN tells me, that number will have increased. They've cited that by 2040 that gap will actually have increased to $527.9 billion. This comes from the very same people you've cited as being your co-development partners.

It's shameful. It's unbelievable that you would attempt to mislead this committee about the true intentions of your partners. A good partner would not have done to them what they have experienced.

Mr. Tremblay, we'll start with the funding formula.

How can you justify not updating the formula when you know that the honour of the Crown disposes the government to act in the utmost of good faith toward their partners?

[Michel Tremblay]

Chair, as I said, the agreement is between the Assembly of First Nations and Indigenous Services Canada and CMHC.

I will point out that there is just a set amount of funding as well. If the formula is changed, there will be winners and losers. The set dollar amount will still be the same.

Again, we are committed to continuing the work. As we said—