Millions of Canadians live in inadequate housing: Report. Sattelite dishes working well though

[VicHockeyFan]

Millions of Canadians live in inadequate housing: Report

By Norma Greenaway, Canwest News Service
November 5, 2009

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/we...507/story.html


B.C. First Nations reserve Ahousaht. Aboriginals, lone-parent families, seniors, younger Canadians, new Canadians, and the jobless in Canada were more likely to be living in places that don't meet basic needs, says a new report.
Photograph by: Debra Brash, Times Colonist, Times Colonist

OTTAWA — An estimated 1.5 million needy households in Canada could have access to suitable, affordable housing for the cost of slightly more than $1 a day for every household in the country, a new report says.

The price tag to eliminate Canada's "housing affordability gap" was a key finding in the report, which said single-parent families, the unemployed, the elderly, immigrants and aboriginals were being hardest hit by the lack of suitable housing.

The report, released Thursday, was prepared for the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and based on an analysis of 2006 data collected by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Will Dunning, the author of the report, said it would cost about $4.7 billion a year — or about $1.10 per day for every Canadian household — to ensure core housing needs were met for the 1.5 million households.

According to the report, almost four million people, among them 750,000 children under the age of 15, were living in what CMHC defines as "core housing need" in 2006.

This means their accommodation was in the state of disrepair, was unsuitable for the number of people living there or ate up more than 30 per cent of the household's pre-tax income.

I wonder if there is any way we could make the houses out of 100% sattelite dishes, rather then just the 12% we manufacture them from now. That might keep out the rot and mold, those things are sturdy, and impervious to the elements, usually very well-maintined by their owners.

[vandervalk]

Between the satellite dishes, broken down cars, refrigerators and dog houses, I'm sure there is enough metal and scraps to construct a small city.

[LJ]

Instead of whining about their unsatisfactory housing, how about they learn to pick up a hammer and saw and maintain the damn free houses they are given.

I saw one report where a lady was showing a reporter around the house and pointing out how dirty and mouldy and unlivable it was. Should have been given a gallon of bleach and some scrub brushes.

I guess having all the junk lying around their yards must be some ancient ritual that they are preserving.

[martini]

Why should I be surprised at the attitude and lack of understanding concerning First Nations.

[G-Man]

No kidding.

The government should be putting as much money into this as possible. It is a national disgrace.

how about they learn to pick up a hammer and saw and maintain the damn free houses they are given.

I am shocked that people still think this way. We should get those people dying from a lack of water to start digging wells too.

We have a responsibility to share the wealth in our nation and around the world. Man sometimes I don't even enjoy being on here.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

No kidding.

The government should be putting as much money into this as possible. It is a national disgrace.

Shoveling money to First Nations is not the way to fix it. Land ownership by individual band members is the way to fix it. Communism didn't work in the rest of the world, why do we think it should work on reserves?

Take the reserve, divide it up like a strata-titled property.

Make the councils submit to audits as a requisit to getting continued funding.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by martini

Why should I be surprised at the attitude and lack of understanding concerning First Nations.

I understand that the way we manage them now is a disgrace. But throwing more money at them without changing the system is stupid.

We give them money like we would give money to people unable to help themselves, the disabled or ill. First Nations people are neither, and we should not treat them as such.

We need to help them overcome the corruption of their government systems, give them rights to own their own land, rather than live in communes, and we need to reward programs that improve their lot, not throw more money at reserves that continue to fail.

We ought not to build them a brand new city in an area that has no chances for economic opportunities for the residents. That'd be like me giving you a $1M home here, then walking away and saying "good luck, you've got a great house" without thinking about how you will maintain it, pay taxes on it etc. And NO, you can't rent part of it out, run a business out of it or go to work to earn moeny for it, because it is 1000 miles away from any economic activity.

[concorde]

I've been saying this for a long time, they need to manage what they have properly before they are given more money.

If they want to live in filth, thats their decision.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by concorde

I've been saying this for a long time, they need to manage what they have properly before they are given more money.

If they want to live in filth, thats their decision.

Let's be clear. Many RENTERS do not manage their homes well. Now take a renter that also gets his/her food and clothing paid for. Where there is no ownership, there is less value placed on things. And poor examples shown by parents/relatives/neighbours doesn't help the next generation grow up aiming much higher.

[G-Man]

I had a long post but ah why bother...

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

I had a long post but ah why bother...

Now I suppose I have to go through the usual racism-denial.

Any society that suggests it is a good idea to have a certain section of the population living in a commune is cruel to that population, and no amount of money will ever fix it. Indeed the more money we throw at that commune, the less chance there is of convincing that population that that is a poor way of life.

[mat]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Now I suppose I have to go through the usual racism-denial.

Any society that suggests it is a good idea to have a certain section of the population living in a commune is cruel to that population, and no amount of money will ever fix it. Indeed the more money we throw at that commune, the less chance there is of convincing that population that that is a poor way of life.

uhmm - fairly certain about the racism denial, that is not required. Your second point is more questionable. 1st nation designations, treaties and oversight provide allot of control outside of Canadian, even international, norms. The real goal is to offer 1st nations the right and opportunity to govern their own territories - supply and regulate housing, health, education and law (to a certain extent).

When an overall majority governance empowers another body to take over for a community, there is both an obligation on the 1st to ensure it meets certain standards, and the empowered to provide. Each will argue that neither has met the contract.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

I understand that the way we manage them now is a disgrace. But throwing more money at them without changing the system is stupid.

We give them money like we would give money to people unable to help themselves, the disabled or ill. First Nations people are neither, and we should not treat them as such.

We need to help them overcome the corruption of their government systems, give them rights to own their own land, rather than live in communes, and we need to reward programs that improve their lot, not throw more money at reserves that continue to fail.

We ought not to build them a brand new city in an area that has no chances for economic opportunities for the residents. That'd be like me giving you a $1M home here, then walking away and saying "good luck, you've got a great house" without thinking about how you will maintain it, pay taxes on it etc. And NO, you can't rent part of it out, run a business out of it or go to work to earn moeny for it, because it is 1000 miles away from any economic activity.

I've said this before in another thread, but I completely agree. While many land claims are patently ridiculous, (I seem to recall a map charting out all of the overlapping land claims totalling over 100 percent of the province) I completely agree that FN groups need to be given ownership rights to a reasonable land settlement in their territories. Even in remote areas of the province, FN groups could likely make a decent income and establish strong skills-development programs by selling resource rights to oil and gas, mining and timber companies.

As I understand it, doing anything on a reserve requires approval from multiple levels of government. Empowering the people in the community so that they can make the most of the resources available to them. The solution to every problem is not "we need more money." When a solution is imposed from outside, there's no ownership. If the solutions to these reserve problems doesn't come from the local level, they won't last.

[LJ]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Shoveling money to First Nations is not the way to fix it. Land ownership by individual band members is the way to fix it. Communism didn't work in the rest of the world, why do we think it should work on reserves?

Take the reserve, divide it up like a strata-titled property.

Make the councils submit to audits as a requisite to getting continued funding.

This was suggested years ago, the particular tribe involved refused to let anyone audit them ... so no deal.

Agree with the rest of your post, the biggest problem is all the money goes to the band council and they divvy it up however they see fit. Some of them live very well indeed while other band members are living in substandard housing without adequate food or services. They need someone like an auditor general overseeing where the money goes so that all of the band members are treated equally. Unfortunately as per my first comment the power structure in place likes it just fine thanks and are not about to curtail spending on themselves.

Each band should be training their young people how to build and maintain housing and then hire them to fix/renovate the houses they have. They should have all their own tradesmen and other skilled workers within their own band to provide them with all the services they need.

If a band member builds a house they will not only take more pride in it's upkeep but they will also have more pride in themselves for having accomplished something beneficial.

It would take at least a generation but by the end of it the welfare society they live in would be a thing of the past which would be a good thing for everybody.

Throwing billions of dollars at this won't cure the systemic welfare, which leads to all their problems, it will merely prolong it.

[phx]

Originally Posted by LJ

If a band member builds a house they will not only take more pride in it's upkeep but they will also have more pride in themselves for having accomplished something beneficial.

Would you build a house on a reserve, with no assurance that you would get to live in it?

[Bernard]

We are on a subject I deal with a lot.

Most on reserve housing is rental housing owned by the band. Most of this housing is either rented to people on social assistance or to people with connections to the band council. It is very, very hard to be able to get rental housing on reserve.

Most reserves in BC are not located close to any centre where you can buy building materials. This means construction and renovation on reserve is much more expensive. In the case of Ahousat, an island based community with more people than Pender, Mayne, Saturna or many other Gulf Islands, this means everything has to trucked from Port Alberni and then barged in from Tofino. There is no BC Ferry subsidy to get the goods to the island.

The band council is responsible for maintaining the houses but get almost no money from the federal government for this. The rents on reserve are constrained by the federal government and tend not to bring enough money to cover the cost of having a housing officer, let alone improve the houses.

The amount of paperwork involved with on reserve housing means that it is more less a fulltime job to report to the federal government and to apply for money to build more housing.

There is a huge problem on reserve with respect to being able to get a mortgage. Unless you can pledge your asset no bank will lend you the money. This means people on reserve can get a mortgage for a mobile home but not for a house. You can get what is called a ministerial guarantee - this means the band is responsible for the mortgage of you default.

A few years back the Skeena Native Development Society did a lot of work on this through their Thinktank on Wealth Creation. The end result they came to is that they need to have a system of land titles on reserve that allows for mortgages and a system of responsible local government. At the moment band councils have very little power to make any real decisions on governance on reserve.

If you could divide up the reserves, which is not currently legal, you would end up with assets of almost no value. Most reserves in BC are in remote locations and most of the land on most reserves has no value. There is very limited land with any real value - remember, in the 1880s the reserves were chosen based on lands that no productive values and then in 1914-16 many of the lands that did have lands were removed from the reserves.

As to the strata title idea for a reserve, that is basically what things are at the moment but with a big trustee having the final say. Land on the reserve though can only be owned by a member of the band.

There is private ownership on reserve, the best known is a certificate of possession. A CP holding has more property rights than a fee simple title save one exception, it can only be sold to another band member. First Nations have no power to do any zoning on reserve, neither do neighbouring local governments. If you own a CP, you build anything on it you want. You can lease it to anyone you want and they can build whatever they want. The band has no power to pass bylaws to require owners of the land to do anything.

This huge power of a CP means that very few bands are interested in creating more of them because they do not have the governance powers needed to manage this land.

In the last decade or so the federal government has been allowing First Nations to have powers over land management on reserve, but those powers are still very limited and still do not give the bands the governance powers needed.

The federal government has also refused to have Indian reserves operate under the Torens system. The lack of Torens means there is a huge mess on reserve as to what rights to lands exist. There are three or four different fee simple like holdings possible on reserve. These systems can, and often are, in conflict so people do not have clear title to the land. The Nisgaa specifically implemented Torens in their Treaty.

All this said, housing on reserve is better now than a generation ago.

[martini]

Thank you Bernard

[VicHockeyFan]

Bernard, is there an example of a reserve in Canada that is thriving, just one that has embraced some type of refroms and is making a go of things? I'm trying to search for one, to see how they do things, to see how they are prosporous, but I can't find anyting.

Something is wrong if every reserve is in tough shape.

Why can't we try some novel ideas with one or two to see where it leads?

[Bernard]

The problem Indian Reserves have is that they are under the Indian Act and have huge restrictions that come with that. There are Indian Bands that are doing well, but they still suffer from the underlying governance problems.

Most of the First Nations that do well have Indian Reserves close to an urban centre and can get development on it. Osoyoos, Kamloops, Westbank, Squamish are just a few that are doing well as business type entities.

The one First Nation that is doing things differently is Sechelt. They have a different type of governance with more real local planning powers. They managed to get a tripartite agreement in the 1980s to have legislated local government powers.

Nisga'a have real functioning governance powers from their Treaty, the problem they have is that they are located in the middle of nowhere.

Another First Nation that is doing well are the Tahltan. They exercise a defacto joint management on a lot of Crown Lands in the Northwest of BC. They have reached close to full employment of employable people. They have quite a few businesses run by Tahltan people, not by the band councils. Still, they have no really on reserve powers of governance and still have the same problems other bands have with registering interests in the land.

The First Nations in Canada are being screwed by the Indian Act, but there are a lot of people that benefit from it and they tend to have power in First Nations. There is also a lot of 'better the devil you know' as well. Most people are inherently opposed to change.

One intent of the BC Treaty process is to get First Nations out from under the Indian Act and give them standing as a third order of government. I believe that local governments should also be given a similar third order of government. The current problem with Treaty negotiations is that the federal government is still dragging its feet even though Jean "1969 White Paper" Chretien is gone as PM. The 1969 White Paper was one that Jean Chretien put out as Minister which called for all First Nations to unilaterally have their lands and governments taken from them. The concept was to repudiate the foundation of Canadian constitutional law by abrogating the 1783 Royal Proclamation. In 1973 the Calder case put an end to the idea the feds could do that.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hmmm, I'm not sure what can be done with reserves in the middle of nowhere, wrt employment opportunities.

[North Shore]

Bernard, what I'm gathering from your posts is that there is no 'power' in the band councils to change their conditions, as all of the power is vested in the federal government. So, why not seize the power and start doing stuff, and have the feds sue them rather than having to do the reverse?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Thanks so much for all the info, Bernard.

Frank Calder's work was heroic, from what I can tell.

I'd be interested to know how Canada's Indian Act compares with governance in the US. Is there a short answer (or opinion) you can give on that?

[phx]

Originally Posted by Bernard

The First Nations in Canada are being screwed by the Indian Act, but there are a lot of people that benefit from it and they tend to have power in First Nations.

Do you think they would be better off without the Indian Act? That is, convert all the reserves to freehold title and have the people be regular members of society?

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by North Shore

Bernard, what I'm gathering from your posts is that there is no 'power' in the band councils to change their conditions, as all of the power is vested in the federal government. So, why not seize the power and start doing stuff, and have the feds sue them rather than having to do the reverse?

That is not easy to do.

One Chief asked me to work out a plan for how the band could operate without any money from the federal government. The idea was to be prepared to make complete break with the government and do their own thing. I came up with a plan, but he could not get enough support from the community to take this path.

Another band wanted employable band members collecting social assistance to put in time doing work around the community. This was shot down in flames by the heavy end of the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. INAC send a letter to the band council and band members saying it was illegal to do this. Meanwhile it remains a requirement that the band pay all the social assistance on reserve - they get reimbursed by the federal government for the dollars paid out but not for the cost to administer SA.

Ultimately band councils have almost no real powers under the Indian Act. Band councils are not allowed to negotiate anything to do with land with a third party. If a band wants to allow a timber company to harvest trees on a reserve, they have to ask INAC to negotiate the deal for them. I know a band that had a deal in place to harvest a reserve to provide timber to a mill that was the biggest employer of band members. The INAC lands staff said no to the deal because they could not be certain that it was a good deal for the band.....

First Nations in Canada are in a really weird situation. Because they were sovereign nations before the British arrived they retain aspects of this in their rights. The starting point of Canadian constitutional law is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognizes First Nations status in Canada.

At the same time the Indian Act is built on the assumption that aboriginal people are like children and need to protected as such. They assumption being that aboriginal people were not capable of making decisions about their lives - they were wards of the state. In the past an aboriginal person that went to University, was bonded, became an officer in the military, got a mortgage, or married a white man, became enfranchised and thereby an 'adult' in the eyes of the Indian Act and was no longer an Indian. They would not be allowed to live on reserve, they could no longer hold property on the reserve, they could not be on the band council.

The world of Indian Act Bands and Indian Reserves in Canada is this bizarre Kafkaesque universe that has evolved over 120+ years.

What do you replace it with? That is the $64 000 question that is being worked on by a lot of people very slowly over the last 20 odd years.

[victorian fan]

A very interesting post, Bernard.