c hoi c e sVol. 14, no. 4, May 2008 ISSN 0711-0677 www.irpp.org

I R P P

Ryan Walker

Social Housingand the Role of

AboriginalOrganizations in

Canadian Cities

Founded in 1972, the Institute for Research onPublic Policy is an independent, national,nonprofit organization.

IRPP seeks to improve public policy in Canada bygenerating research, providing insight and sparkingdebate that will contribute to the public policydecision-making process and strengthen the quality ofthe public policy decisions made by Canadiangovernments, citizens, institutions and organizations.

IRPP's independence is assured by an endowment fundestablished in the early 1970s.

Fondé en 1972, l’Institut de recherche enpolitiques publiques est un organisme canadien,indépendant et sans but lucratif.

L’IRPP cherche à améliorer les politiques publiquescanadiennes en encourageant la recherche, en mettantde l’avant de nouvelles perspectives et en suscitant desdébats qui contribueront au processus décisionnel enmatière de politiques publiques et qui rehausseront laqualité des décisions que prennent les gouvernements,les citoyens, les institutions et les organismescanadiens.

L’indépendance de l’IRPP est assurée par un fonds dedotation établi au début des années 1970.

This publication was produced under thedirection of F. Leslie Seidle, Senior ResearchAssociate, IRPP. The manuscript was copy-editedby Mary Williams, proofreading was byFrancesca Worrall, production was by ChantalLétourneau, art direction was by SchumacherDesign and printing was by AGL Graphiques.

Copyright belongs to IRPP. To order or requestpermission to reprint, contact:

IRPP1470 Peel Street, Suite 200Montreal, Quebec H3A 1T1Telephone: 514-985-2461Fax: 514-985-2559E-mail: irpp@irpp.org

All IRPP Choices and IRPP Policy Matters areavailable for download at www.irpp.org

To cite this document:

Wa l ke r, Ryan. 2008. “Social Housing and the Roleof Aboriginal Organizations in Canadian Cities.”I R P P C h o i c e s 14 (4).

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IRPP or its Board of Directors.

1

many Aboriginal people face in urban areas.However, he concludes that this evident need requiresnot only enhanced funding but also clearly articulat-ed goals and a long-term commitment.

IRPP will be publishing other studies as part ofthis research program. The authors will present casestudies of innovations in public policies and pro-grams in a given policy sector, including how theinnovations were developed and implemented, andassess the results and lessons learned. The studies willbe situated within a broader context, including his-torical and constitutional factors, and will outlinepolicy directions for further progress within the poli-cy field. It is hoped that, consistent with IRPP’s man-date, this research will inform citizen understandingand policy-making in this important domain.

Cette publication représente une étape de plusdans le programme de recherche de l’IRPP surla qualité de vie des Autochtones, qui com-

prend une série d’études consacrées aux innovationsrécentes apportées aux politiques et programmespublics ainsi qu’aux partenariats avec lesAutochtones. Le programme de recherche s’inspiredes travaux menés dans le cadre du projet de l’IRPPsur l’art de l’État, volume III, et en particulier descontributions d’Evelyn Peters, de Joyce Green et IanPeach, et de John Richards à l’ouvrage Belonging?Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship inCanada, publié par l’IRPP en 2007.

La situation d’un grand nombre d’Autochtones estl’une des questions les plus urgentes auxquelles doits’attaquer la politique publique au Canada. Plusieursindicateurs, depuis les niveaux de revenu et de chô-mage jusqu’aux indicateurs de santé, soulignentl’écart important qui existe entre de nombreuxAutochtones et les non-Autochtones du point de vuedes chances d’épanouissement. Certes, des progrèsont été enregistrés dans certains domaines — en cequi a trait à la proportion des Autochtones qui ontachevé leurs études postsecondaires, par exemple.D’autres indicateurs, tel l’Indice de développementhumain des Nations Unies, continuent néanmoins demettre en lumière les disparités inacceptables quipersistent entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones auCanada. Les ententes d’autonomie gouvernementalesignées depuis une trentaine d’années, en particulierdans le Grand Nord, renferment la promesse d’unemeilleure qualité de vie pour les Premières Nationsqui ont pu acquérir leur autonomie communautaire,

Aboriginal Quality of Life /

Qualité de vie des Autochtones

Research Director/ Directeur de recherche

F. Leslie Seidle

With this publication, IRPP continues itsresearch program Aboriginal Quality ofLife — a series of studies examining recent

innovations in public policies, programs and partner-ships involving Aboriginal people. This programbuilds on research on Aboriginal issues carried out aspart of the Institute’s Art of the State III project,notably the contributions of Evelyn Peters, JoyceGreen and Ian Peach, and John Richards to the 2007IRPP volume Belonging? Diversity , Recognition andShared Citizenship in Canada.

The situation of many of Canada’s Aboriginal peo-ple is one of the country’s most pressing public policyquestions. Based on a range of measures, from incomeand unemployment levels to health indicators, thereare significant gaps in life chances between manyAboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. There hasbeen progress in some areas —for example, in the pro-portion of Aboriginal people who have completedpost-secondary education. Nonetheless, measures suchas the United Nations Human Development Indexcontinue to underline the unacceptable disparitiesbetween Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people inCanada. Self-government agreements signed duringthe past 30 years or so, particularly in the North, holdpromise of a better future for the First Nations whohave acquired greater community autonomy. But themajority of Aboriginal people, notably those who livein cities, are not covered by such agreements; forthem, there is a need for other approaches and —above all — renewed political will.

In this study, Ryan Walker addresses the issue ofsocial housing for Aboriginal people, particularlythose living in urban centres. As he explains, from1970 up to the 1990s there was a marked decline inthe resources the federal government devoted to thisfield. Since 2001, the government has made whatWalker describes as a “small-scale re-entry into low-cost housing” and, under a program launched in2006, $300 million will be allocated to off-reserveAboriginal housing over three years. Through a seriesof case studies, Walker demonstrates that Aboriginalhousing organizations have developed innovativenew approaches to address the housing hardship

2

mais la majorité des Autochtones, en particulier ceuxqui vivent en milieu urbain, ne sont pas présentsdans ces accords. Dans leur cas, il faudra envisagerd’autres formules et, surtout, faire preuve d’unevolonté politique renouvelée.

Dans la présente étude, Ryan Walker se penche surla question du logement social pour les Autochtones,en particulier ceux qui vivent en milieu urbain. Ilrappelle que les ressources fédérales attribuées à ceposte budgétaire ont diminué sensiblement entre1970 et les années 1990. Depuis 2001, le gouverne-ment s’est cependant réengagé, à petite échelle, dansle secteur de l’habitation à prix modique. Dans lecadre d’un programme lancé en 2006, il investira300 millions de dollars sur trois ans dans le loge-ment destiné aux Autochtones hors réserve. À partird’une série d’études de cas, l’auteur montre que lesorganisations d’habitation autochtone ont mis aupoint des formules imaginatives pour s’attaquer auxdifficultés auxquelles sont confrontés de nombreuxAutochtones vivant en milieu urbain. En conclusion,il affirme que, pour répondre à ce besoin évident, ilfaut non seulement accroître les ressources finan-cières mais définir des objectifs clairs et prendre unengagement à long terme.

L’IRPP publiera d’autres études dans le cadre de ceprogramme de recherche. Les auteurs présenterontdes études de cas axées sur les innovations apportéesaux politiques et programmes publics dans dessecteurs déterminés de la politique publique, si-gnalant notamment comment ces innovations ont étéélaborées et mises en œuvre, et analyseront les résul-tats de ces innovations, y compris leur impact sur lasituation des Autochtones et les leçons tirées de cesexpériences. Les études s’inscriront dans un contexteplus large, où seront notamment évoqués les facteurshistoriques et constitutionnels, et proposeront desorientations destinées à améliorer davantage la situa-tion dans ce secteur de la politique publique. Onespère que, conformément au mandat de l’IRPP, cesétudes de recherche contribueront à une meilleurecompréhension au sein de la population et à la prisede décisions dans ce domaine important.

3

Contents

5 A Snapshot of Aboriginal Housing Circumstances

in Urban Areas

5 The Policy Context for Aboriginal Social Housing

in Canadian Cities

7 Social and Aboriginal Citizenship

9 Program Innovations in Urban Aboriginal

Housing

13 Conclusion

15 Notes

15 References

About the Author

Ryan Wa l ke r is an assistant professor of planning andgeography at the University of Saskatchewan.Originally from Winnipeg, he has studied at theUniversity of Lethbridge (BA), the University ofWaterloo (MA) and Queen’s University (Ph.D.). One ofhis research interests is the comparative study ofAboriginal housing in urban areas across Canada,New Zealand and Australia.

4

Over half of the 1,172,790 individuals whoidentified themselves as Aboriginal people inthe 2006 Census lived in urban areas; their

housing was, on average, significantly more crowdedand in poorer repair than that of non-Aboriginal peo-ple (Statistics Canada 2008). Since as early as 1970,Aboriginal housing organizations have been operat-ing in urban areas. They have combatted dispropor-tionate housing hardship, fought discrimination inthe private and public housing sectors and deliveredhousing in the most culturally appropriate ways pos-sible within the parameters of state social housingprograms. These organizations offer us one of themost successful examples of how Aboriginal commu-nity activism can effect urban policy innovation andtransform a local experiment into a national pro-gram. They have survived changing policy regimesand — particularly in the past 15 years, which haveseen reduced state investment in social housing aswell as the growth of partnerships and competitiveurban policy — they have managed to reorient theirapproach to developing new housing.

This paper looks at how Aboriginal housing organi-zations have taken innovative new approaches to theirmandates, expanding their housing portfolios andrange of activities to include employment training pro-grams, social enterprises and daycare services. It drawson four case studies — Kinew Housing in Winnipeg,Lu’ma Native Housing in Va n c o u v e r, CorporationWaskahegen in Quebec and the Métis Urban HousingAssociation of Saskatchewan — to examine the waysin which housing policy could be augmented toimprove the quality of life of young and growingurban Aboriginal communities. There is tremendouscapacity and leadership in Canada’s network ofAboriginal housing organizations, but these bodiesneed state support to transform innovations into sus-tainable programs over the medium to long term.

The paper begins with a brief description of thehousing situation of Aboriginal city dwellers. This isfollowed by an examination of related policy history

Social Housing and theRole of AboriginalOrganizations inCanadian CitiesRyan Walker

9 percent of the Aboriginal population lived in crowdedconditions in 2006, versus 1 percent of the non-Aboriginal population. The disparity was highest inPrince Albert, where the figure was 11 percent(Aboriginal) versus 1 percent (non-Aboriginal). InWinnipeg, 5 percent of the Aboriginal population livedin crowded conditions, versus 3 percent of the non-Aboriginal population (Statistics Canada 2008).

In 2006, 15 percent of Vancouver’s Aboriginal popula-tion was living in housing that needed major repairs; 6percent of the non-Aboriginal population was in similarcircumstances (Statistics Canada 2008) (table 2). The cor-responding figures for Edmonton were 14 percent(Aboriginal) and 5 percent (non-Aboriginal). In To r o n t o ,the figures were 12 percent and 6 percent; and inMontreal, they were 14 percent and 8 percent. The home-ownership rate for off-reserve Aboriginal people wasabout 17 percent lower than that of the non-Aboriginalpopulation (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation2004), and homelessness and intra-urban residentialmobility were considerably higher among urbanAboriginal people than among urban non-Aboriginalpeople (Distasio and Sylvester 2004). Mobility betweenurban areas and rural or reserve communities is also anotable issue in discussions of housing in the urban con-text because it is related to the way in which “home” isunderstood (Norris and Clatworthy 2003).

The Policy Context for AboriginalSocial Housing in Canadian Cities

In examining the ways in which we can protect orenhance Aboriginal quality of life, it is useful torecall Salée, Newhouse and Lévesque’s study of the

important role played by the state in such an endeav-our: “quality of life hinges in part on what the state

and a theorization of transformations in the sectorover the past several decades. Next, the four casestudies are presented; and the paper concludes with aseries of recommendations for increasing the scaleand impact of local innovation.

A Snapshot of Aboriginal HousingCircumstances in Urban Areas

Studies conducted in 2001 of the housing cir-cumstances of Aboriginal people in censusmetropolitan areas showed that 25 percent

were in “core housing need”; this means that theirhousing was inadequate, unsuitable and, most com-monly, unaffordable — that is, costing 30 percent ofhousehold income or more (Canada Mortgage andHousing Corporation 2004). The corresponding figurefor non-Aboriginal households was 15 percent. Table1 shows the corresponding figures for majorCanadian cities. Severe rent burden, which occurswhen a household spends 50 percent or more of itsincome on rent, was also significantly higher amongAboriginal households in 2001. Roughly three-quarters of the off-reserve Aboriginal residents incore housing need lived in urban areas (Ark ResearchAssociates 1996; Canada Mortgage and HousingCorporation 2004). In 2006, the off-reserveAboriginal population experienced crowding (that is,one or more people per room) at a rate of 11 percent,compared to a rate of 3 percent in the non-Aboriginal population (Statistics Canada 2008).Crowding was particularly acute in many of Canada’slargest cities, especially on the prairies. In Saskatoon,

5

Table 1

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal HousingAffordability, Selected Cities, 2001 (percent)

Proportion of Proportion of househoulds paying households paying > 30% of income > 50% of income

for housing for housing

N o n - N o n -C i t y A b o r i g i n a l A b o r i g i n a l A b o r i g i n a l A b o r i g i n a l

Va n c o u v e r 4 4 3 7 1 9 1 4

E d m o n t o n 3 6 3 2 1 4 10

S a s k a t o o n 5 0 3 8 21 1 5

W i n n i p e g 3 8 3 3 1 3 10

To r o n t o 3 2 3 7 1 2 1 3

Q u e b e c 31 31 10 1 2

H a l i f a x 4 6 3 8 2 0 1 5

F r e d e r i c t o n 4 2 3 5 1 6 1 3

Source: Pomeroy (2004).

Table 2

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Housing in Need ofMajor Repair, Selected Cities, 2006 (percent)

Proportion of population in unitsneeding major repair

City Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal

Vancouver 15 6

Edmonton 14 5

Saskatoon 12 5

Winnipeg 16 8

Toronto 12 6

Montreal 14 8

Source: Statistics Canada (2008).

6

the market, but a social right” (Canadian Council onSocial Development 1976, 13). These new programsaddressed public discontent with the planning anddesign of public housing and urban renewal, whichwere seen as disconnected from community aspirationsand in many ways destructive to existing communitynetworks. Included on the list of new initiatives werethe cooperative housing, nonprofit housing, rent sup-plements, neighbourhood improvement and residentialrehabilitation programs. Tenants in the social housingprograms would pay according to their income level —t y p i c a l l y, rents amounted to between 25 and 30 per-cent of income.

The Urban Native Housing Program (UNHP) wasone of the social housing programs delivered by theCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC),with rental rates pegged to tenant incomes. It grewout of the distinct need among Aboriginal people inurban areas — many of whom had come from rural orreserve communities — for culturally appropriatesocial housing, and it was facilitated by the capacityof growing urban Aboriginal communities to articu-late and address their priorities. Approximately11,000 units of social housing were developed underthe UNHP between 1970 and 1994 and administeredby about 100 Aboriginal housing organizations; thetotal social housing stock was roughly 661,000 units(Pomeroy 2004; Wolfe 1998).

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Pe o p l e sreported that culturally appropriate housing was ofcentral importance to social, cultural and economicwell-being in urban areas and, not surprisingly, thecommission made reference in this context to theimportance of housing provided by Aboriginal housingorganizations developed under the UNHP (RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996a). UrbanAboriginal housing corporations are run by boards ofdirectors and staff comprised mainly of Aboriginal peo-ple. Many of the Aboriginal tenants they serve havecome from rural or reserve communities and have littleexperience of urban home maintenance, or of urbanlife in general. In the 1970s, the UNHP recruited coun-sellors to help these tenants to adjust to their new envi-ronment. This initiative was unique to the UNHP; afterseveral years of trying, Aboriginal housing advocateshad failed to win recognition from the CMHC of tenantcounsellors as a legitimate program expense (Fulham1 9 81; Lipman 1986). In 1996, the tenant counsellingservices were noted by the Royal Commission for theirimportance in building tenant self-reliance (RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996a); and urban

can or cannot or will or will not offer citizens, or onwhether or not the state shields them from marketinadequacies. It is a function of the guarantees thatthe state provides citizens that basic necessities willbe covered and that protection from physical ormaterial risks and psychological distress will beavailable” (2006, 6-7).

For a time, affordable and adequate housing for allCanadians was a social goal valued by governmentsand many citizens as a right; it was one of the pillarsof the Canadian welfare state (Hulchanski 2002). Overthe past few decades, as the welfare state has aged,housing has become its most dilapidated pillar. Yetthere is no shortage of evidence that the proportionof Canadian low-income households experiencinghousing affordability problems has increased remark-ably over time — most notably, since the federal gov-ernment stopped building new stock under itsnonprofit and cooperative social housing programs inthe 1990s (Hulchanski 2002; Moore and Skaburskis2004). There is also no shortage of evidence thatstrong housing policy is central to, and interconnect-ed with, beneficial outcomes in other welfare sectors,such as health, education and income security (Carterand Polevychok 2004; Dunn 2000; Kemeny 2001).

Most housing scholars agree that the only real wayto address the shortage of adequate and affordablehousing for those who cannot satisfy their needs inthe diminishing private rental market or the high-priced home-buyers market is for the state to buildsuch housing (Moore and Skaburskis 2004; Wa l k s2006). More specifically, the state needs to providesocial housing organizations with adequate anddependable resources to do the job themselves. Insome cases, assisted home ownership is desirable, andthis option can also be facilitated by social housingorganizations. Those organizations and the housingstock from earlier decades that they still manage arethe greatest legacy of the period in which social hous-ing was a solid pillar of social welfare — generally, themid-1960s through to 1993. A significant part ofCanada’s social housing provision infrastructure is thelegacy of the urban Aboriginal housing organizations.

In 1973, changes to the National Housing Ac t(N H A) ushered in a series of new social housing pro-grams. The minister responsible for housing, RonBasford, declared upon amending the N H A that “It isthe fundamental right of every Canadian to haveaccess to good housing at a price he [s i c] can afford.Housing is not simply an economic commodity thatcan be bought and sold according to the vagaries of

back door. It began targeting the problem of homeless-ness rather than that of insufficient housing, and it usedHuman Resources and Social Development Canada(HRSDC) instead of CMHC. HRSDC launched theSupporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) in1999 to provide one-time funding contributions tourban communities offering proposals to address home-lessness; these proposals had to allow for sustainabilityand involve partnerships.

In 2001, the federal government launched theAffordable Housing Initiative (AHI) through the CMHC,officially marking its small-scale re-entry into low-costhousing provision. It avoided using the term “socialhousing,” which might have been associated with pastsocial welfare programs. The initiative was remarkablefor its much-reduced capacity for meeting housingneeds and for its lack of a coherent goal. For example,the AHI’s purpose was unclear. It seemed to have novision or measurable target, and the federal govern-ment demonstrated no commitment to leadership in thesector. The AHI was simply a five-year project in part-nership with the provinces that provided a lump-sumcapital subsidy to assist initiatives already underway orstarting up in communities across Canada. In the end,it produced very few new housing units, and the fund-ing it supplied was generally insufficient to reducerents enough for those most in need of nonmarkethousing (Pomeroy 2004; Shapcott 2006). It was alsoinsufficient to allow for a sustained subsidy to housingproviders to maintain rents at an affordable level overthe medium to long term.

The federal government did not re-enter the off-reserve Aboriginal housing sector until 2006, when itbudgeted $300 million to be rolled out over a three-year period: the Off-Reserve Housing Trust (OHT). TheOHT resembles the AHI in many ways. It will not govery far toward addressing the need for affordablehousing in urban Aboriginal communities. Neither theAHI nor the OHT provide a continuing subsidy for newunits, and so it is unlikely that they will be affordablefor those most in need, like many of those served bythe UNHP.

Social and Aboriginal Citizenship

The move from large-scale, state-led, goal-orientedsocial housing programs to programs like theAHI, SCPI and OHT — one-time commitments of

capital funding to assist local initiatives in the

Aboriginal housing organizations began to take a “soft-e r,” more individualized approach to tenancy manage-ment issues (Wa l ker 2003), as well as accommodatingshifts in household composition as people movedbetween city, rural and reserve communities (Ske l t o n2002; Wilson 2000).

There is evidence suggesting that when socialhousing is provided to Aboriginal households byAboriginal organizations, the outcomes are betterthan they are when it is provided by mainstreamorganizations. In an evaluation of its urban socialhousing programs, the CMHC found that the UNHPoutperformed the mainstream nonprofit and rent sup-plement programs on a variety of well-being indica-tors (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation1999). Compared with Aboriginal tenants in main-stream social housing, a significantly higher propor-tion of tenants in UNHP units had improved access tosocial services; they made more friends and felt moresecure, settled and independent. The RoyalCommission pointed out further benefits of theUNHP: the effect of family stabilization gave tenantsa secure base from which to pursue education andemployment; it created a domain of control wherecultural identity could thrive (Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples 1996a, b). Despite this important,though limited, evidence, there has been virtually noresearch conducted on the provision of urban hous-ing by Aboriginal organizations using culturallymeaningful approaches (Walker and Barcham 2007).Research in the Australian Aboriginal housing sectorsuggests, however, that such approaches yield signifi-cant positive outcomes (Walker, Ballard and Taylor2003), as do similar approaches used in other sectorspertaining to Canadian Aboriginal communities, suchas health care (Minore and Katt 2007) and suicideprevention (Chandler and Lalonde 2004).

The way the state intervenes in the housing marke thas changed greatly since the 1970s. From 1970 to1993, the federal government led the way in buildinga nonprofit and cooperative social housing sector; thestate took an active role in program planning, imple-mentation and long-term funding. From 1993 to 2001 ,the state stopped building new social housing. Theconsequences were soon noticeable. In 1999, afterwitnessing a rapid rise in the rate of absolute home-lessness and inner-city socio-economic deterioration(see, for example, Toronto Mayor’s HomelessnessAction Task Force [1999] and Winnipeg’s Inner CityHousing Coalition [2000]), the federal government re-entered the nonmarket housing sector through the

7

8

observe, it was a conscious move at a historic momentof opportunity to usher in an era of elite power con-solidation, sacrificing the gains realized by the rest ofsociety through a strong welfare state after the SecondWorld War (Harvey 2005; Ralston Saul 2005).

The movement by Aboriginal peoples in Canadaand internationally to advance self-determination byre-ordering relations between the state andAboriginal society has been particularly strong sincethe 1960s (Cardinal 1969; Durie 1998; Green 2005).Finding good ways of “living together differentlywithout drifting apart” requires self-determination inthe context of treaty and constitutional partnershipand the cohabitation of peoples (Maaka and Fleras2005, 300). Roger Maaka and Augie Fleras have con-ceptualized a useful dichotomy of universal versusinclusive citizenship. The recognition of self-determi-nation, with meaningful consequences in statute, pol-icy and program practice, is a foundation of inclusivecitizenship. It is the opposite of the one-size-fits-all,or one-size-should-fit-all, approach that characterizesuniversal citizenship in statute, policy and practice.The right of and aspiration for self-determinationaffects how social welfare goals such as housing arepursued. Such goals must be achieved largely byAboriginal peoples themselves in partnership withsettler governments. Self-determination in settlercountries like Canada is not a right to separation andisolation — it is a right to fulfill community aspira-tions in partnership with non-Aboriginal communi-ties through mutual recognition and respect.

Self-government in Canada can be understood asan approximation of self-determination that is rough-ly compatible with state structures and bureaucracies(Green 1997). Adhering to section 35 of theConstitution Act, 1982, the federal government hasindicated its intent to enter into partnerships withAboriginal communities (including urban ones) offland bases in order to further the implementation ofself-government in meaningful ways (Wherrett 1999).Self-government can involve delegating to Aboriginalinstitutions administrative authority over state pro-grams (for example, child and family services) orcommunity governance — Aboriginal institutionsmaintain a circumscribed autonomy while the stateretains power over the terms of Aboriginal develop-ment (Alfred 1999). In urban areas, the most pervasivemodel of self-government is based on associationalcommunities (as opposed to land-based communities)characterized by self-governing Aboriginal institu-tions in sectors like housing, health, education, culture

voluntary sector — has been theorized differently by anumber of scholars. Bob Jessop argues that the statemust now, in contemporary times, be understood in astrategic-relational context as one actor among many(2000). He maintains that there is an increasingreliance on networks, partnerships and “reflexiveself-organisation” across public, private and volun-tary sectors to achieve societal goals (2001). It followsthat the state makes strategic contributions to rela-tional production processes in communities wherevoluntary sector partners are often those responsiblefor program sustainability.

A second and somewhat compatible way of theo-rizing the shift away from state-led social programsconcerned with providing a strong foundation forcommon social citizenship is presented by AnthonyGiddens and Jane Jenson and Denis Saint-Martin.They argue that in response to neoliberal critiques ofthe welfare state, social democratic governments havemoved away from the progressive realization of socialrights, such as affordable and adequate housing for allcitizens. Social cohesion — the strength of socialbonds in society — replaces social rights as the goal ofp o l i c y - m a kers and decision-makers (Jenson andSaint-Martin 2003). Keeping people engaged in activecitizenship, in producing their own welfare, is seen asa way to increase social cohesion. Giddens conceptu-alizes this turn as a new relationship between a“social investment state” and an “active civil society”in which both state and civil society actors are betterable to adapt to shifting economic conditions, and tochange priorities and policy directions quickly andstrategically in response to market and social forces(1998). Long-term funding commitments, such asthose embedded in the discontinued social housingprograms (for example, 35-to-50-year operatingagreements), are not highly compatible with thismodel of the social democratic state. The frameworksof the AHI, SCPI and OHT are much more so.

These theorizations characterize the state as a pas-sive subject pulled in inevitable directions and drivenby too-powerful market and social forces. Someauthors have, appropriately, opted to envision thestate as a powerful rather than a passive force, andthey present a third way of contemplating the state’srole in stabilizing citizenship, addressing market inad-equacies and enhancing quality of life. They arguethat the dismantling of social welfare, such asCanada’s social housing programs, was at best theresult of poor political leadership in the face of finan-cial downturns and governance crises. At worst, they

cities across Canada and taken up by the CMHC as anational model.

Kinew Housing was incorporated under the sponsor-ship of the Indian and Métis Friendship Centre inWinnipeg in 1970 to meet the need for culturallyappropriate Aboriginal housing in the city. A group ledby several Aboriginal women organized a housingcommittee at the Friendship Centre to serve as anadvocate for Aboriginal tenants subjected to racismand discrimination in the public and private rentalhousing markets. The group determined that the bestway to combat the problem was to establish anAboriginal housing provider that could tailor its prac-tices to the Aboriginal community.

Kinew Housing purchased the first homes with pri-vate funding and at low prices from the Winnipegbranch office of the CMHC. Among its objectives,Kinew included the provision of soft services — specifi-cally, the services of a tenant counsellor. In 1971, itsattempts to secure CMHC funding for such a counsellorfailed, and the role was filled on a voluntary basis by aKinew board member. Kinew’s objective of delivering arent-to-own model of housing was not allowed underthe section of the NHA within which it operated. Butonce Kinew had moved beyond the experimental phase,sustainable long-term government funding was orches-trated within section 15.1 of the NHA, which coverednonprofit (rental) housing. Several years later, tenantcounsellors were recognized as a legitimate expense forKinew Housing (and for the UNHP generally). This,along with the allocation of higher operating budgets(due to the pepper-pot nature of Kinew’s portfolio, thefact that it provided single or semidetached dwellingsfor larger families and its obligation to maintain itsolder stock) and a deeper subsidy (that is, rent was setat 25 percent of income rather than 30 percent), exem-plified how autonomy or self-determination could workin response to Aboriginal community needs. Yet,despite these differences, the program parameters gov-erning the UNHP were much the same as those govern-ing other mainstream social housing organizationsunder section 15.1, and later section 56.1, of the NHA.

After 1993, when the period of unit construction andacquisition under the UNHP ended, over 10 yearselapsed without Kinew adding to its unit portfolio. Inlate 2005, a commitment was made to develop 10 newunits under the Affordable Housing Initiative agreementstruck between the federal and Manitoba governmentsin 2002. The two governments each contributed$75,000 per unit, and the 10 three-bedroom, two-storeysubsidized rental units of infill housing in the

and justice (Barcham 2000; Peters 1992; RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996a).

The neoliberal project, which gives rise to a verydifferent policy environment for social housing, isnot incompatible with advances in Aboriginal self-determination and self-government. Self-governingurban organizations are the primary actors in thestruggle for urban community self-determination. Byfacilitating their development, the state disposes of itsresponsibilities for administering social welfare; how-ever, when it transfers responsibilities to these organ-izations, it provides inadequate resources to supportprograms yet demands accountability.

Program Innovations in UrbanAboriginal Housing

The following case studies provide insight into theways in which the transformation in social wel-fare is affecting the urban Aboriginal housing sec-

t o r. They show how urban Aboriginal housingorganizations, which were established as a means forlarge government housing bureaucracies to deliverlong-term programming, are now seeking their owninnovative solutions and trying to find ways to supporttheir initiatives with sporadic government funding in anenvironment characterized by competitive urban policy.

The case studies combine work undertaken in thispolicy field in 2008 (Walker and Barcham 2008;Walker 2008) with the work I did with these organi-zations in 2007. Case study data were gatheredthrough one-on-one personal interviews with execu-tive directors, managers and senior staff at each ofthe housing organizations; additional informationcame from agency documents given to me during theinterviews. What follows is analysis of interviewnotes, although all interviewees were given thechance to suggest revisions to my representation. Allbut one participant submitted comments for revision,and these have been incorporated.

Kinew Housing, Winnipeg

Kinew Housing today operates almost 400 units ofsubsidized (social) rental housing. Its story is inex-tricable from the history of the UNHP. The project,which Henderson refers to as “the Kinew Housingexperiment” (1971), was the first urban Aboriginalhousing development to derive from the commu-n i t y, and it was subsequently reproduced in other

9

10

be off subsidy, meaning that Kinew will need tocharge its tenants higher (market) rents. Tenants onsocial assistance will go from paying $295 a monthto paying roughly $500 a month.

Reports commissioned by the Canadian Housingand Renewal Association on the future of socialhousing after subsidy (operating) agreements expirenote specifically that, with few exceptions, Aboriginalhousing organizations will not remain viable associal housing providers unless new subsidy isextended to them (Connelly Consulting Services2003; Pomeroy 2006). The Off-Reserve AboriginalHousing Trust funds allocated to the Province ofManitoba will be used mostly for building new hous-ing stock, although the number of units is still uncer-tain. At least some of the success — and probably asignificant measure of it — that Kinew has enjoyed inadapting to a new and often competitive policy envi-ronment is due to the fact that its manager, who hasbeen with the organization since its early years, hasacquired a great deal of expertise and won muchrespect within the Manitoba housing and social serv-ices community.

Lu’ma Native Housing Society, Vancouver

Vancouver’s Lu’ma Native Housing Society, like mostother Aboriginal housing organizations in citiesacross Canada, began operating under the UNHP andhas struggled since 1993 to find ways of deliveringnew social housing that meets the needs and fulfillsthe aspirations of the Aboriginal community.

Lu’ma (“new beginnings” in Coast Salish) operatesabout 325 subsidized rental housing units and is thecity’s oldest Aboriginal housing society — it wasincorporated in 1980 under the name VancouverIndian Centre Housing Society. About 95 percent ofits units were developed under the UNHP; the other 5percent were developed under a British ColumbiaHousing program. Since 1993, Lu’ma has developed50 new units, including the Art Zoccole AboriginalPatients’ Lodge, opened in 2004. The lodge was aresponse to the need expressed in the Aboriginalcommunity for a supportive living environment forpermanent residents and those in Vancouver tem-porarily for medical care. The furnished family unitsare complemented by a large common room on theground floor. The building was designed by Nisga’aarchitect Patrick R. Stewart to reflect Aboriginal cul-tural elements. Services include resident transporta-tion, daycare and housekeeping; there is also a lodgecoordinator (Stewart 2007). This project was the prod-

Centennial (inner-city) neighbourhood are now occu-pied. A small company operated by a Métis familywas contracted to build them. Over half ofCentennial’s residents are Aboriginal people, and theneighbourhood’s community improvement associationwas deeply involved in this project. The CentennialCommunity Improvement Association selected tenantsfrom among neighbourhood residents, who were thenapproved by Kinew Housing. A second phase ofdevelopment, comprising 10 more units, was complet-ed and tenanted in 2007. As Centennial has recentlybeen categorized as one of Winnipeg’s improvementzone neighbourhoods, the second-phase developmentreceived a financial contribution from all three levelsof government. In both phases of development, anyleftover government funding was put in a reserveaccount to offset any year-end deficit. The Manitobagovernment has signed an agreement with Kinew toprovide rental subsidies to make units affordable totheir Aboriginal tenants.

As it did back in 1970 Kinew Housing is findingnew ways to deliver social housing to its constituen-cy using whatever means are available through gov-ernment programs and community initiatives. Whilethe development of new units is a positive thing, therate of development is nowhere near the level it mustreach to fill the growing need — in 2004, over 2,000Aboriginal families were on the waiting lists at Kinewand other Winnipeg Aboriginal housing organiza-tions (Simms and Tanner 2004). The greatest chal-lenge is represented not only by the insufficientamount of new development, but also by the fact thatthe subsidy agreements attached to existing UNHPunits will soon expire, since their mortgage loans arenearly paid out. Once this occurs, the social housingprovider will own the housing asset, and rents willhave to cover operating costs. The subsidy for manysocial housing organizations is linked to a low inter-est rate over the amortization of their mortgages.Given that mortgage repayment is the largestexpense, and the reason for the subsidy over therepayment period, once the mortgage is repaid, thehousing organization should remain viable — cashflow requirements will decline significantly. However,it doesn’t work that way for urban Aboriginal hous-ing providers; due to their use of the rent-geared-to-income formula (rents are fixed at roughly 25 percentof tenants’ incomes) at a deeper subsidy, they havelower rent revenues. In 2007, 17 Kinew units cameoff subsidy. By 2008, that number will have increasedby 83 units, and by 2010, half of Kinew’s units will

projects such as contracting out its services as a proper-ty manager; and by seeking new sources of funding forthe soft services that sustain community and culture inthe housing process. It is also offering assisted owner-ship options to Aboriginal households. While Lu’ma seesthe 2007 competitive proposal call by the Off-ReserveAboriginal Housing Trust as an important source offunding for its new housing development plans,1 o n echallenge it faces in the post-1993 period is the relativescarcity of the financial resources required to meet thegrowing need for social housing in the Aboriginal com-m u n i t y. The financial resources allocated to BritishColumbia under the trust are not substantial — they willscarcely make a dent in the roughly 5,000 names onVancouver waiting lists for Aboriginal housing. A sec-ond challenge for Lu’ma is to find a way to continuesubsidizing existing units after the expiration of itsoperating agreements with the CMHC, which have setrents at 25 to 27 percent of household income. In 2006,operating agreements expired on about 10 Lu’ma units;in 2007, about 10 more will expire, and the number willcontinue to grow. Lu’ma has had to respond by charg-ing rents on these units that match normal market rentsfor comparable private sector units in comparable partsof the city.

A third challenge is that proposal development timesunder the OHT are short; there are only a few weeksbetween call and deadline. Proposal development fundsare not provided upfront as part of the OHT administra-tion budget, making it difficult for applicants to findqualified people to give technical assistance in draftingthe proposals. Community groups may learn how to bemore resourceful as they compete for scarce funds, butthe situation lets governments off the hook. The pres-sure on the state to develop a clear set of strategies toeradicate homelessness and to ensure adequate andaffordable housing for citizens is alleviated. A largepart of Lu’ma’s success (like that of Kinew, inWinnipeg) in adapting to the changing policy environ-ment is attributable to its chief executive officer, archi-tect Patrick R. Stewart, and the organization’sprofessional affiliates. They have an impressive trackrecord in Vancouver and throughout BC, and they havebuilt a reputation for being innovative and visionary.The importance of such leadership capacity cannot beunderstated in a competitive urban policy environment.

Corporation Waskahegen, Quebec

Since 1972, Corporation Waskahegen (which means“shelter” or “house” in Algonquin) has been managingand delivering social housing and related services and

uct of a partnership between a number of agenciesand funders, including several First Nations, the Cityof Vancouver, the Governments of Canada and BritishColumbia, several charities and philanthropic organi-zations and, primarily, the BC Women’s Hospital andHealth Centre.

In 2000, Lu’ma was granted the authority by thefederal government and the Vancouver Aboriginalcommunity to administer federal homelessness pro-gramming in Metro Vancouver. Lu’ma is the commu-nity entity for an Aboriginal homelessness steeringcommittee comprised of over 20 Aboriginal service-provider organizations that cater to those who arehomeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.

It has also extended its reach beyond its ownsocial housing portfolio to provide property manage-ment services to BC Housing for an Aboriginal youthhousing project and to act as a commercial landlordfor other Vancouver Aboriginal organizations. Lu’mahas ventured into the commercial market in anattempt to become sustainable, given that operatingsubsidies are no longer offered by the federal govern-ment. Lu’ma is pursuing new projects to developassisted home-ownership options for tenants whohave exhibited the desire and potential to make thetransition to that tenure type. Partnering with theAboriginal Mother Centre Society, Lu’ma is alsoengaged in trying to complete the housing spectrumfrom emergency shelter units for the homeless, totransitional units, to social rental housing, to assistedhome ownership. Proposals have been developed for10 shelter units, 10 units of transitional housing, 10units of social housing, and 20 units of assisted own-ership and a variety of additional services and sup-ports, like a food bank, a clothing exchange, daycare,retail space and a social enterprise centre.

With its full spectrum of tenure types built on afoundation of common cultural and social supports,Lu’ma aspires to see its clientele move from homeless-ness to home ownership in a supportive environment.It is several years into a large-scale project withnumerous Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partners tocreate a housing development in Vancouver thatwould include homes for Aboriginal foster childrenand families. The Aboriginal Children’s Village is con-ceived as a mixed-use, family-oriented site with over20 units of apartment-style dwellings, office and retailspace, and an Aboriginal longhouse for cultural uses.

Lu’ma has responded to the post-1993 operatingenvironment by pursuing partnerships with otherorganizations; by undertaking revenue-generating

11

12

provincial Aboriginal housing organizations with aself-governing mandate, and despite the fact that ithas a well-developed leadership, it is not benefitingto any great extent from new affordable housing pol-icy frameworks since 2001.

Métis Urban Housing Association of

Saskatchewan

The Métis Urban Housing Association ofSaskatchewan (MUHAS) was established in 1992 toaddress common housing policy and program issuesaffecting its members — six independently owned andoperated Métis housing corporations. In this way, it isvery different from Waskahegen, a corporation thatowns units across the province. In 1997, theGovernment of Canada, through the CMHC, imple-mented an agreement with the Province ofSaskatchewan to transfer existing social housing fromthe federal to the provincial government; theSaskatchewan Housing Corporation (SHC) became theprovincial agency responsible for delivering the hous-ing. Shortly thereafter, the SHC became an associatemember of the MUHAS. At this time of historicchange in the social housing sector, the MUHAS artic-ulated a vision of self-government in relation to thedownloaded UNHP stock, which represented a largeportion of the social housing portfolio that had beenshifted to the province. Over a period of two years, theSHC and the MUHAS met several times to discusscommon program issues and the need for a new oper-ating agreement — one less cumbersome than thatpassed down from the CMHC. An agreement wasw o r ked out between SHC and MUHAS member hous-ing organizations whereby Aboriginal urban housingwould be placed under the relatively autonomouscontrol of the organizations’ boards. Over a period ofabout 30 months, between 1998 and 2001, the SHCand the MUHAS conducted negotiations on thatagreement. Each MUHAS member corporation signeda separate agreement, but they were virtually identi-cal. The MUHAS, rather than acting as a self-govern-ing body on the provincial level (like CorporationWaskahegen in Quebec), has continued to serve as acollective interest and advocacy organization.

Under the Métis urban social housing agreements,member corporations have greater autonomy, admin-istrative flexibility and decision-making powers thanthey did under the CMHC agreements. For example,they have been able to negotiate new mortgage termswith lower rates, banking the savings to build areserve fund for maintenance, new building and asso-

supports to Aboriginal people living off-reserve. It isa service organization for the Native Alliance ofQuebec. Its mandate derives from the alliance, and itworks under a self-management agreement with theSociété d’habitation du Québec. This relationshipmakes Waskahegen the primary social housing bodyfor a potential clientele of approximately 26,000 FirstNations and Métis people living off-reserve in sixregions of the province. Waskahegen manages about1,100 social housing units built under the UNHP, plusapproximately 775 units developed under the Ruraland Native Housing Program and 137 under otheroperating agreements.

While it is the province’s central self-governingAboriginal housing organization, CorporationWaskahegen has expanded its role over the years. Italso delivers, among other things, architectural andconstruction project management services, andemployment and economic development programs. Ithas diversified its range of roles and responsibilitiesto reflect its belief that housing is a key element ofan interrelated set of policy sectors that impact onpeople’s quality of life. Corporation Waskahegen isthe largest, oldest and most well-established (thoughnot the only) provincial self-government organizationin Canada’s off-reserve Aboriginal housing sector.

Relatively few housing units have been built underprograms such as the AHI and the OHT. For example,only eight new units were built by Waskahegen underthe AHI, and the money transferred to the Provinceof Quebec under the OHT initiative has not been usedby or allocated to Corporation Waskahegen to buildnew housing. At the time of writing, the $38.2 mil-lion in OHT funds allocated to Quebec had been inthe provincial treasury for several months (a refer-ence to the OHT is made in the province’s 2008-09budget plan, in a table based on the schedule of fed-eral transfers). At the August 2007 KatimajiitConference, held in Nunavik, the Government ofQuebec announced that it would invest an additional$25 million to build 50 housing units in Nunavik, butit did not indicate whether those funds would comefrom the OHT.2 Notwithstanding this announcementfor Nunavik, Waskahegen needs an additional 1,500units of social housing in order to meet the demand.

As they are in other parts of the country, operatingagreements in Quebec on units developed under theUNHP are expiring, and with them the rent subsidiesto those most in need of adequate and affordablehousing. Despite Corporation Waskahegen’s status asone of the country’s oldest and best-established

the SHC is considered by both parties to be very strongand a considerable improvement over the arrangementsthat existed prior to the transfer of administrativeresponsibility for social housing from the federal gov-ernment to the Province of Saskatchewan. The choicemade by the MUHAS with the SHC to use the OHTfunding to make capital improvements to existing stockshows the flexibility in implementation planning fromprovince to province. Recall that the Government ofManitoba with its Aboriginal housing stakeholdersdecided to use the OHT funds for building new stock.New stock is the priority in BC, as well.

The Lu’ma and Kinew cases examined earlier arefine examples of strong local capacity for innovationand leadership, for creating a track record and foradvancing quality of life in urban areas on Aboriginalpeople’s own terms, but in both cases there have beeninsufficient financial resources to build more than ahandful of new housing units. Lu’ma is aggressivelypursuing its goal to offer a spectrum of services andprograms, ranging from shelters for the homeless andsupports to assisted home-ownership opportunities forAboriginal households, as well as a variety of otherservices and programs to improve urban quality of life.The organization has also taken on projects such asproperty management for other clients. CorporationWaskahegen undertakes construction management andoffers architectural services to expand its resource baseand viability. Increases in housing stock to close thegap between need and availability will nonethelessrequire significant government investment. The inge-nuity of these organizations needs government support.

C o n c l u s i o n

Aboriginal housing organizations, at both thelocal and provincial levels, have demonstratedover the past 15 years that they are able to

respond innovatively and reliably to the challengespresented by a new housing policy environment.Government financial allocations to low-cost housing(for example, the AHI and the OHT) during this periodhave not been adequately resourced or directed towarda coherent goal- and target-oriented national socialhousing program. This has stifled the ability ofAboriginal housing organizations to realize the fullpotential of their program ingenuity or match theiractivities to the needs of their communities. Looking atthe Saskatchewan and Quebec cases, for example, it is

ciated services. Their operating agreements with theCMHC had required them to transfer any savingsback to the province. Maintenance decisions andannual budgets do not need SHC approval, as theydid under previous federal agreements; instead, eachcorporation submits a cash-flow proposal stating howit wishes to receive its yearly subsidy allocation.Annual audits are still required by the province. Indi-vidual housing organizations, through their boards ofdirectors, are otherwise able to govern their opera-tions within the parameters of the agreement reachedin 2001. Since organizations are able to bank savingsachieved through operational efficiencies like findingbetter rates on work and maintenance, there is anincentive to reduce costs in order to build financialcapital for new projects. The agreement ensures, how-ever, that resources are dedicated to housing andrelated services.

Under the OHT agreement between Canada andSaskatchewan, the SHC must administer calls for pro-posals, although an agreement has been reachedbetween the SHC and the MUHAS that the Métis poolof funding will go to MUHAS member organizationsbased on their existing portfolio sizes. The trust allo-cation is split by the SHC into three funding pools:Métis organizations; First Nations organizations; andthe province — that is, the SHC itself — for proposalstargeting Aboriginal peoples. Capital improvementsto existing housing stock will be the focus of Métisapplications to the OHT, although proposals for build-ing new units can be considered for provincial fund-ing. Review committees made up of Métis, FirstNations and SHC representatives will advise on theallocation of funds from the provincial pool forbuilding new units.

As they are elsewhere in Canada, units of existingurban Aboriginal housing are gradually coming offsubsidy in Saskatchewan. When this occurs, rents riseabove the rate of 25 to 30 percent of income tomatch rents for comparable units in the private mar-ket. Each housing organization determines its rate,however, and the goal will still be to provide housingthat is on the affordable side of market rents in eachcity. As one Métis housing manager noted, unitscoming off subsidy rise from a rent of $300 a monthwith a utility allowance of $50 per household, to$400 without a utility allowance. This increase willcompel those most in need of assistance to search forhousing elsewhere — housing that is likely to be notadequate or suitable to their needs.

The working relationship between the MUHAS and

13

14

Representatives of Aboriginal housing organiza-tions, academics, community advocates, politiciansand government officials will need to perform at leasttwo basic but difficult tasks in order to effect realprogress in the urban Aboriginal housing sector: theymust articulate and implement a return to commonsocial citizenship goals related to housing for allCanadians; and they must articulate and implement avision of inclusive citizenship based on the under-standing that the key to better outcomes is to ensureAboriginal self-determination in program design,delivery and evaluation.

Aboriginal housing and other community-basedorganizations are upholding their end of the bargainin state-society relations around housing. Govern-ments must fulfill their responsibilities to improvequality of life through goal-oriented housing policy,with adequate financial resources over a sufficientlylong period of time, to allow the ingenuity of localactors to match the scale of need to response.

unclear what the federal government will achievewith its OHT funds. In Saskatchewan, they are pri-marily directed toward improving and maintainingunits built under past programs, such as the UNHP.In Quebec, as I have mentioned, the funding at thetime of writing had been in the provincial treasuryfor several months, and no clear indication had beengiven as to how it would be used for Aboriginalhousing — with the exception of the announcementthat 50 units will be built in Nunavik, but the fund-ing source for that project was not specifically iden-tified as the OHT. The Saskatchewan and Quebeccases contrast sharply with earlier cases; in the pre-vious era, Aboriginal housing programs had annualbuilding targets for new units, even though targetnumbers dwindled through the 1980s and early1990s. In Manitoba and British Columbia, however,the OHT will be used to build new units ofAboriginal housing off-reserve. The number of unitswill be small, given the total amount of funding, andit is unclear how the program will address the imbal-ance between need (thousands on waiting lists) andresponse (short-term financial contribution withouttargets). All the provinces examined in this reporthave well-developed capacity in their urbanAboriginal housing sectors. It is still, however, theresponsibility of the state to create clear goals andtargets for the development of new housing units tomeet the needs of Aboriginal urban residents. It hasnot done so with the OHT.

The pairing of a social investment state with anactive civil society in order to achieve housing goalsmight work effectively in the future (Giddens 1998;Jenson and Saint-Martin 2003), but it will be neces-sary for the state to provide sufficient financialresources and maintain a coherent national visionbased on equity and redistribution among citizens.When the state takes these actions, then the creativeand promising advances that are being made at thelocal level by Aboriginal housing organizations willincrease in scale. Governments must provide the poli-cy and resources Aboriginal housing organizationsneed to build social housing that improves quality oflife on Aboriginal people’s own terms — a task thatthese organizations are far better suited for than gov-ernment bureaucracies. However, without clearlyarticulated state social goals and long-term financialcommitments, Aboriginal housing organizations aredestined to spend their time filling out applicationsfor short-term competitive financing and trying tofind partners to add value to project proposals.

Distasio, J., and G. Sylvester. 2004. First Nations/Métis/InuitMobility Study: Final Report, March. Winnipeg:University of Winnipeg, Institute of Urban Studies.Accessed April 29, 2008. http://ius.uwinnipeg.ca/pdf/Aboriginal%20Mobility%20Final%20Report.pdf

Dunn, J. 2000. “Housing and Health Inequalities: Review andProspects for Research.” Housing Studies 15 (3): 341-66.

Durie, M.H. 1998. Te Mana Te Kawanatanga: The Politics ofMaori Self-Determination. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Fulham, S.A. 1981. In Search of a Future. 4th ed. Winnipeg:Manitoba Métis Federation.

Giddens, A. 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal of SocialDemocracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Green, J. 1997. “Options for Achieving Aboriginal Self-Determination.” Policy Options 18:11-15. Montreal: IRPP.

_ _ _ _ _ . 2005. “Self-Determination, Citizenship, and Federalismas Palimpsest.” In Canada: The State of the Federation2003: Reconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations, editedby M. Murphy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press.

Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Toronto:Oxford University Press.

Henderson, D.G. 1971. A Second Report on the “KinewHousing Incorporated” Experiment. Winnipeg: Universityof Winnipeg, Institute of Urban Studies.

Hulchanski, J.D. 2002. Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities.Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) DiscussionPaper F/27, December. Ottawa: CPRN. Accessed April 29,2008. http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/elibrary/CPRNHousingPolicy.pdf

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2006. “Account-ability and Reporting to Canadians.” In OperatingPrinciples for the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust.Ottawa: INAC.

Inner City Housing Coalition (ICHC). 2000. Inner City HousingPolicy Platform: Federal Election . Winnipeg: ICHC.

Jenson, J., and D. Saint-Martin. 2003. “New Routes to SocialCohesion? Citizenship and the Social Investment State.”Canadian Journal of Sociology 28 (1): 77-99.

Jessop, B. 2000. Good Governance and the Urban Question:On Managing the Contradictions of Neo-liberalism .Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, Department ofSociology. Accessed April 29, 2008. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/jessop-good-governance-and-the-urban-question.pdf

_ _ _ _ _ . 2001. “Bringing the State Back in (Yet Again):Reviews, Revisions, Rejections, and Redirections.”International Review of Sociology 11 (2): 149-73.

Kemeny, J. 2001. “Comparative Housing and Welfare:Theorising the Relationship.” Journal of Housing and theBuilt Environment 16 (1): 53-70.

Lipman, M. 1986. “Historical Review of CMHC’s Urban NativeHousing Activity.” In Urban Native Housing in Canada,Institute of Urban Studies Research and Working Paper19, by M. Lipman and C. Brandt. Winnipeg: Universityof Winnipeg, Institute of Urban Studies.

Maaka, R., and A. Fleras. 2005. The Politics of Indigeneity:Challenging the State in Canada and Aotearoa NewZealand. Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press.

Notes1 Project proposals from organizations were adjudicated

competitively, and many lost out; in total, more thanfive times the amount of funding available wasrequested through these proposals.

2 In the section entitled “Accountability and Reporting toCanadians” in Operating Principles for the Off-ReserveAboriginal Housing Trust, no specific requirement isstated for provinces to account to the federal govern-ment for how the money is spent: “All governmentsrecognize the importance of being accountable to theirresidents, including reporting on how public funds areused. Provincial governments are encouraged to reportdirectly to their residents on the expenditures financedand outcomes achieved as a result of funding providedthrough the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust.Provincial governments are also encouraged toacknowledge in public announcements the fundingcontribution provided by the Government of Canada inrespect of housing for Aboriginal Canadians living off-reserve” (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2006, 2).

ReferencesAlfred, T. 1999. Peace, Po w e r, Righteousness: An Indigenous

M a n i f e s t o. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Ark Research Associates. 1996. The Housing Conditions of

Aboriginal People in Canada: Summary Report.Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Barcham, M.S. 2000. “(De)Constructing the Politics ofIndigeneity.” In Political Theory and the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, edited by D. Ivison, P. Patton, andW. Sanders. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 1999.Evaluation of the Urban Social Housing Programs .Ottawa: CMHC.

_ _ _ _ _ . 2004. “Revised Aboriginal Households.” ResearchHighlight, 2001 Census Housing Series 6, Socio-eco-nomic Series 04-036. Ottawa: CMHC.

Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD). 1976.Social Housing Policy Review. Ottawa: CCSD.

Cardinal, H. 1969. The Unjust Society: The Tragedy ofCanada’s Indians. Edmonton: M.G. Hurtig.

Carter, T., and C. Polevychok. 2004. Housing Is Good SocialPolicy . Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN)Research Report F/50, December. Ottawa: CPRN.Accessed April 29, 2008. http://www.cprn.org/documents/33525_en.pdf

Chandler, M.J., and C.E. Lalonde. 2004. “TransferringWhose Knowledge? Exchanging Whose Best Practices?On Knowing about Indigenous Knowledge andAboriginal Suicide.” In Aboriginal Policy Research:Setting the Agenda for Change. Vol. II, edited by J. P.White, P. Maxim, and D. Beavon. Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing.

Connelly Consulting Services. 2003. Guaranteeing a Future:The Challenge to Social Housing as OperatingAgreements Expire. Ottawa: Canadian Housing andRenewal Association.

15

16

_ _ _ _ _ . 2008. “Aboriginal Self-Determination and SocialHousing in Urban Canada: A Story of Convergenceand Divergence.” Urban Studies 45 (1): 185-205.

Walker, R., J. Ballard, and C. Taylor. 2003. DevelopingParadigms and Discourses to Establish MoreAppropriate Evaluation Frameworks and Indicators forHousing Programs. Perth: Australian Housing andUrban Research Institute.

Walker, R.C., and M.S. Barcham. 2007. “UnderstandingIndigenous Urban Housing Outcomes.” Centre forIndigenous Governance and Development (CIGAD)Briefing Notes, March. Palmerston North, NZ: MasseyUniversity, CIGAD. Accessed April 29, 2008.http://cigad.massey.ac.nz/documents/Briefing%20Notes%201_2007.pdf

_ _ _ _ _ . 2008. Comparative Analysis of Urban IndigenousHousing in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,National Aboriginal Housing Association.

Walks, R.A. 2006. “Homelessness, Housing Affordability,and the New Poverty.” In Canadian Cities inTransition: Local through Global Perspectives. 3rd ed.,edited by T. Bunting and P. Filion. Toronto: OxfordUniversity Press.

Wherrett, J. 1999. Aboriginal Self-Government. CurrentIssue Review 96-2E. Ottawa: Parliamentary ResearchBranch. Accessed April 29, 2008. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/962-e.htm

Wilson, K.J. 2000. “The Role of Mother Earth in Shapingthe Health of Anishinabek: A GeographicalExploration of Culture, Health and Place.” Ph.D. diss.,Queen’s University.

Wolfe, J. M. 1998. “Canadian Housing Policy in theNineties.” Housing Studies 13 (1): 121-33.

Minore, B., and M. Katt. 2007. “Aboriginal Health Care inNorthern Ontario: Impacts of Self-Determination andCulture.” IRPP Choices 13 (6).

Moore, E., and A. Skaburskis. 2004. “Canada’s IncreasingHousing Affordability Burdens.” Housing Studies 19(3): 395-413.

Norris, M.J., and S. Clatworthy. 2003. “Aboriginal Mobilityand Migration within Urban Canada: Outcomes, Factorsand Implications.” In Not Strangers in These Pa r t s :Urban Aboriginal Pe o p l e s, edited by D. Newhouse andE.J. Peters. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative.

Peters, E.J. 1992. “Self-Government for Aboriginal Peoplein Urban Areas.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies12 (1): 51-74.

Pomeroy, S. 2004. A New Beginning: The National Non-reserve Aboriginal Housing Strategy . Ottawa: NationalAboriginal Housing Association.

_ _ _ _ _ . 2006. Was Chicken Little Right? Case Studies on theImpact of Expiring Social Housing Operating Agreements.Ottawa: Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.

Ralston Saul, J. 2005. The Collapse of Globalism and theReinvention of the World. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996a. “UrbanPerspectives.” In Report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples. Vol. 4, chap. 7. Ottawa: Minister ofSupply and Services.

_ _ _ _ _ . 1996b. “Housing.” In Report of the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples. Vol. 3, chap. 4.Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.

Salée, D., D. Newhouse, with the assistance of C. Lévesque.2006. “Quality of Life of Aboriginal People in Canada:An Analysis of Current Research.” IRPP Choices 12 (6).

Shapcott, M. 2006. “Building Relations with the New FederalGovernment.” Paper presented at the National AboriginalHousing Association conference, June, Va n c o u v e r.

Simms, T., and E. Tanner. 2004. “The CentennialNeighbourhood Project, Winnipeg.” Paper presented atthe National Aboriginal Housing Association confer-ence, June, Vancouver.

Skelton, I. 2002. “Residential Mobility of Aboriginal SingleMothers in Winnipeg: An Exploratory Study ofChronic Moving.” Journal of Housing and the BuiltEnvironment 17 (2): 127-44.

Statistics Canada. 2003. Initial Findings of the 2001Aboriginal Peoples Survey: Housing and WaterQuality. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.

_____. 2008. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit,Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census. Ottawa:Statistics Canada.

Stewart, P.R. 2007. “Art Zoccole Aboriginal Patients’Lodge.” Paper presented at the Canadian Institute ofPlanners annual conference, June, Quebec City.

Toronto Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force. 1999.Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An ActionPlan for Toronto. Toronto: City of Toronto.

Walker, R.C. 2003. “Engaging the Urban AboriginalPopulation in Low-Cost Housing Initiatives: Lessonsfrom Winnipeg.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research12 (1): 99-118.

17

association locale serait incapable de faire. Cependant,bien que des ressources additionnelles aient été con-sacrées au logement autochtone hors réserve enSaskatchewan et au Québec, on ne sait pas dans quellemesure ces fonds serviront à construire de nouvelleshabitations ou seront plutôt affectés à l’entretien du stockde logements actuel.

Au cours des 15 dernières années, les organisationsd’habitation autochtone ont fait preuve d’imagination ens’attaquant aux défis soulevés par la réorientation de lapolitique de logement. Malgré cela, elles n’ont pas puréaliser tout le potentiel d’ingénuité de leurs programmes,ou même mettre en place des activités répondant entière-ment aux besoins des communautés, parce que lefinancement public ou bien était insuffisant, ou bien n’é-tait pas rattaché à un programme national cohérent axésur un ensemble précis d’objectifs et de cibles pour lelogement social. Il importe que les gouvernements four-nissent le cadre politique et les ressources dont ces orga-nisations ont besoin pour construire des logementscapables d’améliorer la qualité de vie des Autochtones enfonction de leurs propres besoins. En l’absence d’objectifssociaux clairement définis et d’engagements financiers àlong terme de la part de l’État, les associations de loge-ment autochtone risquent de devoir consacrer une parttrop grande de leur temps à solliciter des financements àcourt terme et à chercher des partenaires capables de ren-forcer leurs projets.

Les dirigeants des organisations de logementautochtone, les chercheurs universitaires, les leaders com-munautaires, les politiciens et les représentants du secteurpublic doivent accomplir deux tâches difficiles mais fon-damentales pour marquer des progrès réels dans cedomaine : ils doivent préparer et mettre en œuvre unretour aux objectifs sociaux de la citoyenneté rattachésau droit au logement de tous les Canadiens, et ils doiventdéfinir et mettre en pratique une vision inclusive de lacitoyenneté qui stipule que, pour progresser, il faut queles Autochtones puissent contrôler eux-mêmes le contenuet le mode d’exécution des programmes ainsi que l’évalu-ation des résultats.

La présence des organisations d’habitationautochtone en milieu urbain remonte à 1970. Ellesont lutté contre les privations disproportionnées

dont souffrent les Autochtones en matière de logement etcontre la discrimination dont ils sont victimes dans lesecteur du logement tant public que privé, et leur ontprocuré des habitations en tenant compte le plus possiblede facteurs culturels appropriés dans le contexte des pro-grammes publics de logements sociaux.

La présente étude examine la façon dont ces organisa-tions se sont adaptées à l’évolution du contexte politique.Pour s’attaquer à d’autres aspects de la qualité de vie desAutochtones en milieu urbain, elles ont trouvé des façonsinnovatrices de réaliser leur mandat, agrandi leur porte-feuille d’unités de logement et élargi leur champ d’acti-vité, notamment en mettant en place des programmes deformation à l’emploi, des entreprises sociales et des ser-vices de garderie. L’auteur se penche sur quatre études decas (les sociétés Kinew Housing à Winnipeg et Lu’maNative Housing à Vancouver, la Corporation Waskahegenau Québec et la Métis Urban Housing Association ofSaskatchewan) pour proposer des moyens d’améliorer lapolitique de l’habitation de façon à relever la qualité devie des jeunes Autochtones urbains, dont le nombre s’ac-croît de plus en plus. Le réseau des associations d’habita-tion autochtone possède des réserves considérablesd’aptitudes et de leadership, mais ces organisations ontbesoin de l’appui de l’État pour transformer leurs innova-tions en programmes viables à moyen et à long terme.

Les exemples des sociétés Lu’ma et Kinew servent àillustrer la présence de capacités vigoureuses d’innovationet de leadership au niveau local. Les responsables de cesprojets ont montré qu’ils sont capables d’améliorer laqualité de vie en milieu urbain en fonction des propresbesoins des Autochtones, mais leurs ressources finan-cières ne leur ont permis de construire qu’un petit nombred’unités de logement. Par contre, l’association d’habita-tion métisse de la Saskatchewan et la CorporationWaskahegen, qui relèvent d’organisations provinciales,font preuve d’une grande efficacité et peuvent influencerl’orientation des politiques et des programmes, ce qu’une

RésuméSocial Housing and the Role of Aboriginal

Organizations in Canadian CitiesRyan Walker

18

reserve Aboriginal housing in Saskatchewan andQuebec, it remains unclear how many new units will bebuilt or whether resources will be directed mostly tomaintenance of existing housing stock.

Over the past 15 years, Aboriginal housing organiza-tions have responded innovatively to the challenges pre-sented by the new housing policy environment, but theyhave been prevented from realizing the full potential oftheir program ingenuity or even from matching theiractivities to community needs, because government fund-ing has not been adequately resourced or directed towarda coherent national social housing program that is goaland target oriented. Governments must provide the policyand resources Aboriginal housing organizations need tobuild social housing that improves quality of life onAboriginal people’s own terms. However, without clearlyarticulated state social goals and long-term financialcommitments, Aboriginal housing organizations are des-tined to spend too much time filling out applications forshort-term financing and trying to find partners tostrengthen their projects.

Representatives of Aboriginal housing organiza-tions, academics, community advocates, politiciansand government officials will have to perform at leasttwo basic but difficult tasks in order to effect realprogress in this sector: they must articulate and imple-ment a return to common social citizenship goalsrelated to housing for all Canadians; and they mustarticulate and implement a vision of inclusive citizen-ship based on the understanding that the key to betteroutcomes is to ensure Aboriginal self-determination inprogram design and delivery and in the evaluation ofo u t c o m e s .

Since as early as 1970, Aboriginal housing organi-zations have been operating in urban areas. Theyhave combatted disproportionate housing hard-

ship, fought discrimination in the private and publichousing sectors, and delivered housing in the most cul-turally appropriate ways possible within the parametersof state social housing programs.

This paper examines how Aboriginal housing organi-zations have adapted to a changing policy environment.In order to address other aspects of Aboriginal quality oflife in an urban setting, they have taken innovative newapproaches to their mandates, expanding their housingportfolios and range of activities to include employmenttraining programs, social enterprises and daycare serv-ices. This paper draws on four case studies — KinewHousing in Winnipeg, Lu’ma Native Housing inVancouver, Corporation Waskahegen in Quebec and theMétis Urban Housing Association of Saskatchewan — toexamine the ways in which housing policy could beenhanced to improve the quality of life of young andgrowing urban Aboriginal communities. There is tremen-dous capacity and leadership in Canada’s network ofAboriginal housing organizations, but these bodies needstate support to transform innovations into sustainableprograms over the medium to long term.

The Lu’ma and Kinew cases provide examples of astrong local capacity for innovation and leadership;those involved in these projects have shown that theyhave the ability to advance urban quality of life onAboriginal people’s own terms, but they have not hadthe financial resources to build more than a handful ofnew housing units. The Métis and Waskahegen cases,which involve provincial umbrella organizations, pro-vide examples of a strong capacity for efficiency andfor influencing the direction of policy and programs — asingle organization would be incapable of doing so.Though new resources have been dedicated to off-

SummarySocial Housing and the Role of Aboriginal

Organizations in Canadian CitiesRyan Walker