Senator Klyne: Senator Gold, I appreciate that you’ve highlighted some of the importance of this. The federal underfunding of Indigenous housing has negatively affected many generations in many ways. Failure to fulfill treaty rights and failure to keep promises only lead to Indigenous nations unnecessarily having to beg and litigate.

Given the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee’s projections, is the government planning on increasing investments, implementing additional programs aimed at providing on-reserve housing in order to deliver on this promise to Indigenous communities?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight entitled Study on the Fact-Finding Mission on Audit and Oversight Practices in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, the government has pledged to close the infrastructure gap in Indigenous communities by 2030. However, the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee has warned in its June 2022 report that at the current pace of investments, this target will not be met when it comes to housing.

Can you please elaborate on how the Department of Indigenous Services Canada measures the existing gap, and when we will see the promised estimate of First Nations’ infrastructure needs? Will this estimate be included as part of the investment package in the upcoming Fall Economic Statement?

Hon. Marty Klyne: I could make this a question; it’s more of a statement.

I have heard what Senator Tannas has had to say here. Has anybody on the committee, as well as witnesses or others, delved into this whole permanent guaranteed seating?

I was under the impression that, at one point, there was going to be three seats, and others would be intermittent. I’m surprised — I can’t say that I’m pleasantly surprised — that NWAC is on there. I’ve done a lot of work with them — they have a right to be there — through the experiences I’ve had, and watching Harry Daniels when he was the national president, and how he dealt with NWAC at the constitutional table when there was no seat for them. He had an extra seat; he invited them to the table. It put everybody on their heels because that was the only woman representative who was sitting around that table.

I’m a little surprised. Senator Tannas was on to something there with what he just said.

I would not opine upon this without first talking to Cassidy Caron, the President of the Métis National Council, or without calling my chief. I’m a member of Little Black Bear’s Band. I would call the chief there, and ask him to consult with the chief-in-council. I would also want to speak to some of the regional chiefs within the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN.

To the point that Senator Tannas was making, I would throw that back over to those who have guaranteed seats on that, and those three.

The constitutional definition of “Aboriginal peoples” — thank you very much, Harry Daniels — includes Métis. It is First Nations, Métis and Inuit; those groups are the constitutional definition of “Aboriginal peoples.” They should have a say in this.

This is a reminder of something from the early days of trying to form this: There was First Nations representation around the table as it was being discussed. Somebody asked one of the chiefs there — a chief from Saskatchewan — “What do you think about what the Métis need or want?” He said, “That’s a little colonialism because we don’t speak on behalf of Métis. If you want to know what they think, you ask them and get them to this table.”

Has anybody explored this type of thing? Has anybody consulted with these other organizations, which are the established organizations within the Constitution?