Okay, imaginary person, you seriously have to tone down the hostility (and I need to stop reading Globe and Mail comment sections before writing).
I think it’s useful to acknowledge there are indeed different understandings of whether Indigenous housing is a right.
If you take a strictly legal, positivist approach, which assumes the only valid perspective is the one affirmed by current Canadian law, then that’s fine. But I want you to recognize this is what you are doing, and legal positivism does not lead to objective truth outside of “this is what the law says right now.”
I bring this up because part of learning about issues like housing, or education, or treaties, or what have you, is understanding Indigenous peoples do not necessarily agree with the Canadian state about how things were, are, or should be. This does not make us wrong, and it does not make the Canadian state right. I am not going to argue one way or the other in this chapter, because it would get very long. I am just going to summarize the positions.
Housing as an Aboriginal or treaty right
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples addressed the different perspectives on housing as a right in its final report:
In a submission to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in 1992, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) asserted that “housing is a federal responsibility which flows from the special relationship with the federal Crown created by section 91(24) of the British North America Act of 1867 and treaty agreements themselves.”
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations stated that “[S]helter in the form of housing, renovations, and related infrastructure is a treaty right, and forms part of the federal trust and fiduciary responsibility. [This position derives] from the special Indian-Crown relationship dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, enhanced by section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”2
What “housing as an Aboriginal or Treaty right” means to different Indigenous peoples and organizations varies greatly. To some it means 100 percent paid-for, provided-at-no-cost funding. For others, it means guaranteed subsidies to help with construction and operation costs, with bands collecting rent or offering rent-to-own regimes as they wish.
Housing as social policy
The Royal Commission also states (italics mine):
To date, the federal government has not recognized a universal entitlement to government-financed housing as either a treaty right or an Aboriginal right. It has taken the position that assistance for housing is provided as a matter of social policy, and its Aboriginal housing policy has been based on this premise. Thus, assistance has been based on “need.”3
The Canadian government, then, argues that providing housing assistance to those in need (Indigenous or not) is a social policy objective for all Canadians. This is the current official approach to Indigenous housing in Canada.
Can you please get to the free housing issue now?
Yes, and thank you for being patient.
Contrary to popular belief, no one is handing out free houses on-reserve. When you hear about someone being on a housing list on the rez, you’re not listening to people tell you they are waiting until someone hands them the keys to a brand-new home they now own, debt free.
There are two main categories of housing on-reserve:
1.market-based housing
2.nonprofit social housing
Market-based housing on-reserve
Market-based housing refers to households paying the full cost associated with purchasing or renting their housing. This is not free housing.
As of 2006, home-ownership rates on-reserve were at 31 percent, compared to 69 percent among off-reserve Canadians.4 While the overall home-ownership rate is significantly lower on-reserve than off, many Canadians are not aware there is any home ownership on-reserve at all.
There are barriers to market-based housing on-reserve that you should understand. Land on-reserve is held in common; it is not split into individual properties owned by individual people. You can be given permission to possess a piece of land and use it, but this does not mean you own it.5
Most people require some sort of loan to purchase a home, and to secure that financing they must have collateral (something that can be seized and sold off in order to pay your debt). There are severe Indian Act limitations to seizing property on-reserve, making it extremely difficult to secure financing for anything, whether you intend to buy or build a house, start a business, do renovations, or what have you.6 To be extremely clear, this is not an endorsement of attempts to unilaterally impose private-property regimes on reserve; I’m just explaining things.7
There are various programs in place, with new ones being developed on a community-by-community basis to address the issue of financing. Indian Affairs administers Ministerial Loan Guarantees, which are the most common and provide security for lenders.8 However, the First Nation is ultimately on the hook if there is a default, and not all communities can cover that cost, so these loan guarantees are not always available.
In 2008, with great fanfare, the Harper government announced a program that was supposed to build 25 000 new homes on reserves across Canada by 2018. This First Nations Market Housing Fund had only managed to help build 99 houses by May of 2015.9
The First Nations Market Housing Fund:
…will establish a Credit Enhancement Facility. This will help individuals on-reserve and on settlement lands where appropriate, to obtain loans, where their First Nation meets certain criteria, such as a demonstrated ability to manage their finances, loans and housing.10
The Fund adds another layer of protection to lenders compared to what is available through Ministerial Loan Guarantees. If the individual borrower defaults, then the band is on the hook with the Ministerial Loan Guarantees. If the band does not have the capital to guarantee the loan that way, it simply won’t be issued. With the First Nations Market Housing Fund, if the band defaults, there is a 10 percent backstop that can come out of the fund, making it slightly more likely a lender will allow individual band members to borrow. However, the band has to be approved first, and as you can see from above, they have to be in good financial standing, which is not so easy when you are administering poverty.
In addition, there was a one-time only grant of $300 million into the fund in 2008, and administrative costs alone are $3.6 million a year, with $5.4 million being spent in 2014 alone on “capacity development.”11 Many people have pointed out that this is an inefficient and expensive way to encourage market housing on-reserve. Nonetheless, there are nearly 60 First Nations participating in the fund as of 2015, with many more in negotiations to join.12
So far, no one approach has been successful enough to work in every situation and home ownership on-reserve varies from “a lot” to “almost none” depending on the community.
Income is another obvious barrier to accessing market-based housing on-reserve, whether we’re discussing building a new home, purchasing an existing home, or renting a home owned by the band. This brings us to the second category.
Nonprofit social housing
The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Agency (CMHC) delivers housing programs and services across the country, to all people living in Canada, under the National Housing Act.13 It states:
The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.14
Section 95 of this Act deals with social housing, and programs under this section include subsidies for nonprofit rental housing on-reserve (and elsewhere throughout Canada).15 If I haven’t pounded in this fact enough, let me do it once more: this is not a program only First Nations peoples benefit from. There are tens of thousands of Canadians living in co-op housing built
with the help of subsidies under section 95.
The Co-Operative Housing Federation of Canada deals with social housing off-reserve, but these FAQ answers apply on-reserve, as well:
The members do not own equity in their housing. If they move, their home is returned to the co-op [the band], to be offered to another individual or family who needs an affordable home.
Some co-op households pay a reduced monthly rent (housing charge) geared to their income. Government funds cover the difference between this payment and the co-op’s full charge. Other households pay the full monthly charge based on cost.
Because co-ops charge their members only enough to cover costs, repairs, and reserves, they can offer housing that is much more affordable than average private sector rental costs.16
Nonprofit social housing is often called Band Housing on-reserve, and 57 percent of on-reserve people lived in these units as of 2006.17
Indian Affairs (alone or via the CMHC) does not cover the full cost of housing.18 In addition to government funding, First Nations and their residents are expected to secure funding from other sources for their housing needs, including shelter charges and private-sector loans.
All people in Canada who are eligible for social assistance can be issued shelter allowances. This is meant to help low-income individuals meet their shelter expenses (rent, utilities), and amounts are based on provincial tables. Since 1996, shelter allowances for First Nations people living on-reserve tended to be calculated using provincial-rate tables, but, in 2010, there was a review of the shelter-allowance policy that exposed some problems.19 Essentially, the issues identified were inconsistent application, lack of clarity, inadequate funding, and so on. So, in 2012, Indian Affairs issued a National Social Programs Manual that combined five social programs into one document and more clearly outlined eligibility requirements and rates available.20
All this really means is that for people living off-reserve, there are provincial-policy manuals explaining the labyrinthian process of getting a shelter allowance; for people living on-reserve, there is a federal-policy manual, which is equally as complicated. The reason for this division harks back to Constitutional division of powers wherein social programming like this is generally a provincial/territorial concern, but becomes a federal concern when it involves “Indians and lands reserved for Indians.”
Before you go thinking everything is rosy, in 2012, the CMHC announced it was cutting funding for section 95 housing on-reserve in Saskatchewan by 30 percent.21 These kinds of cuts have a huge impact on how many units can be built in First Nations communities, and greatly exacerbate the already unbelievably long waiting lists to access social housing on-reserve.
But I thought…
You thought wrong. While on-reserve home ownership lags behind off-reserve ownership, it does exist despite the considerable obstacles involved in securing financing. Band housing is built with the help of government subsidies available for similar projects all over Canada, and where low-income First Nations individuals need help to pay their rent in these social housing units, Indian Affairs provides social assistance similar to that available to all other Canadians.
We can and should delve into housing quality and conditions on- and off-reserve and understand the factors involved in overcrowding and inadequate shelter. But to have that discussion, I first needed us to get past the myth of free housing.
If you want to continue to call what I’ve described “free housing,” then you need to recognize this situation is not unique to First Nations. If the only complaints on section 95 housing and/or shelter allowances you have are aimed at First Nations, then those arguments are inherently racist.
However, I think the real issue is that most people honestly don’t understand housing on-reserve, and because the issue is complicated, people rely on word of mouth. I’m hopful this chapter helps clear up some of the confusion.
NOTES
1.Statistics Canada, “Table 3: Distribution of First Nations People, First Nations People With and Without Registered Indian Status, and First Nations People With Registered Indian Status Living On or Off Reserve, Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2011,” last modified November 4, 2015, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/2011001/tbl/tbl03-eng.cfm.
2.Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, “Volume 3, Gathering Strength, Chapter 4- Housing,” last modified February 8, 2006, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211053819/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/si37_e.html#2.2%20A%20Right%20to%20Housing.
3.Ibid. (my emphasis).
4.Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, “Preconditions Leading to Market Housing on Reserve,” last accessed November 2, 2015, https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=150&itm=18&lang=en&fr=1344275780406.
5.Indian Act, RSC, 1985, c I-5, s 20(1). “No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.” The rest of s. 20 explains how one can acquire a Certificate of Occupation. None of this is the same as fee-simple land ownership. Fee-simple land ownership is the most common form of land ownership in common-law countries like Canada, and with fee simple you can rent your land, sell it, or pass it on to your heirs.
6.Ibid., s 89.
7.Thomas Flanagan, First Nations: Second Thoughts (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2008). This is one such regime promoted by former Kamloops Chief, Clarence T. (Manny) Jules, and then made into a proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act, which so far has only passed through one reading in Parliament.
8.INAC, “Ministerial Loan Guarantees,” last modified July 4, 2012, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010759/1100100010763.
9.Dean Beeby, “First Nations $300M Federal Housing Fund Builds Just 99 Homes,” CBC News, May 27, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-nations-300m-federal-housing-fund-builds-just-99-homes-1.3086954.
10.First Nations Market Housing Fund, “About the Fund,” last accessed Nov. 2, 2015, http://www.fnmhf.ca/english/about/index.html.
11.Here, capacity development basically meant explaining to First Nations how the fund works. See note 8.
12.First Nations Market Housing Fund, “Participating First Nations,” last accessed November 2, 2015, http://www.fnmhf.ca/english/participating_fn/index.html.
13.National Housing Act, RSC 1985, c N-11; Government of Canada, “National Housing Act,” 1985, last modified November 5, 2015, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-11/index.html.
14.Ibid., section 3.
15.Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, “On-Reserve Non-Profit Housing Program (Section 95),” last accessed November 2, 2015, http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/onre_010.cfm.
16.The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, “What Is a Housing Co-op?,” last accessed November 2, 2015, http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pages2007/about_1.asp.
17.See note 4.
18.INAC, “First Nation On-Reserve Housing Program,” last modified September 15, 2010, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010752/1100100010753.
19.INAC, “Evaluation of Shelter Allowance as it Relates to On-Reserve Housing,” last modified August 2011, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343849675000/1343849974382.
20.INAC, “National Social Programs Manual” January 31, 2012, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-HB/STAGING/texte-text/hb_sp_npm_mnp_1335464147597_eng.pdf.
21.NationTalk, “Budget Cuts to On Reserve Social Housing Program,” nationtalk.ca, August 7, 2012, http://nationtalk.ca/story/budget-cuts-to-on-reserve-social-housing-program.
17
The Myth of the Drunken Indian
Ah, yes. It’s time to finally address the foundational stereotype of the drunken Indian, hopped up on the White Man’s firewater. (Actually, in Cree it’s called “iskotêwâpoy,” which is more like “fiery liquid.”)
This particular stereotype is extremely prevalent, and very ugly. It mashes together many importan
t pieces that should be unpacked and examined. Whether trotted out as invective-laden generalizations or proffered as a supposedly kinder “it’s not really your fault” genetic explanation, it has created some heavy baggage for Indigenous peoples. Many Indigenous people have internalized the stereotype, believing alcoholism is something genetically impossible to avoid. On top of this, Indigenous peoples often find themselves fearing becoming the face of the stereotype, feeling that drinking in public solidifies the stereotype in ways other populations simply do not have to worry about.
The stereotype itself is not as ubiquitous or damaging as it once was, due to many studies and publicly accessible articles that debunk commonly held misconceptions. In a 2008 CBC article, Katherine Walker discussed some of the ways the stereotype has lost its potency, at least in the sense that it is no longer as easy, or legal, to act on it by denying Indigenous peoples jobs, homes, or even entrance into certain establishments. In my opinion, she refocuses the issue best here:
I do not want to deny the very real problems with addictions among aboriginal people. Far too many communities have high rates of alcohol and drug use and heartbreakingly high rates of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder among their children.
The reasons why aboriginal people have struggled with addictions, individually and collectively, have been the focus of many a report or survey through the years. The root causes are pretty well documented at this point – residential schools, the Indian Act, child welfare issues, Indian agents, geographic isolation, racism, intergenerational trauma – the list goes on.1
Nonetheless, it is clear the stereotype endures and continues to be passed down as truth often enough that it would be remiss of me not to address it. It isn’t hard to find examples of the myth rearing its ugly head. In 2007, a teenage employee of Tim Hortons taped a sign to a drive-through window that stated, “No Drunken Indians Allowed.”2 In 2012, a Toronto restaurant faced serious backlash for its “Dirty Drunken Half-Breed” burger.3 In 2014, Winnipeg mayoral hopeful Gord Steeves had to face some fallout when his wife’s social-media comments invoked the drunken Indian stereotype.4 That same year it was revealed a Manitoba fishing lodge had published a guide for its clientele, advising them not to offer alcohol to Cree guides because “like all Native Americans, they have a basic intolerance for alcohol.”5 These are just some of the incidents that gained media attention over the past few years.
Indigenous Writes Page 19