{"id":2044,"date":"2026-04-28T17:51:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T21:51:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/?p=2044"},"modified":"2026-04-29T13:56:29","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T17:56:29","slug":"strengthening-indigenous-housing-through-build-canada-homes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/2026\/04\/28\/strengthening-indigenous-housing-through-build-canada-homes\/","title":{"rendered":"Strengthening Indigenous Housing through Build Canada Homes"},"content":{"rendered":"

TO: The Honourable Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities
\nCC: The Prime Minister\u2019s Office (PMO); The Treasury Board Secretariat; The Minister of Indigenous Services
\nDATE: December 9, 2025<\/p>\n

Executive Summary<\/h3>\n

The federal government\u2019s launch of Build Canada Homes (BCH) shows a shift in housing policy. Capitalized to “supercharge” supply through industrial strategies and faster financing, BCH aims to modernize Canada\u2019s housing ecosystem.\u00b9\u00a0 However, the current BCH governance structure, which leaves decision-making in the hands of the federal government and treats Indigenous governments as competitive players alongside municipalities, risks making the systemic inequities identified by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Auditor General even worse.<\/p>\n

Current data indicates a housing infrastructure gap for First Nations exceeding $135 billion by 2030, a number that will continue to grow annually due to inflation and population growth.\u00b2\u00a0 On top of this, 82% of Indigenous peoples live off reserve, often falling into a jurisdictional grey area between federal on-reserve programs and provincial municipal funding.\u00b3 The current competitive bidding processes favour applicants with high administrative capacity (ex: major cities), leaving remote and resource-dependent Indigenous communities behind.\u2074<\/p>\n

This paper looks at three policy options to integrate Indigenous housing into the BCH mandate. It recommends Option 2: The establishment of dedicated, specific BCH funding streams for First Nations, Inuit, and M\u00e9tis governments, administered by Indigenous-led governance bodies.<\/p>\n

Background and Context<\/h3>\n

2.1 The Build Canada Homes (BCH) Mandate<\/h4>\n

Build Canada Homes was established to streamline the federal housing ecosystem. Building on earlier Department of Finance initiatives to build 5,000 affordable homes, \u2075 BCH\u2019s mandate focuses on scaling factory-built solutions and leveraging public lands to lower costs. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has launched consultations on an industrial housing strategy to support this vision, focusing on speed, standardization, and productivity. \u2076<\/p>\n

While these goals are important for the general market, they frequently don\u2019t align with the unique geographic and cultural realities of Indigenous communities. The industrial model relies on economies of scale and proximity to transportation hubs, conditions that are rarely met in remote First Nations or Inuit communities, where logistics costs can triple the price of a standard unit of housing.\u2077<\/p>\n

2.2 The Indigenous Housing Crisis<\/h4>\n

The housing deficit facing Indigenous peoples is not only a supply issue, but a result of decades of underfunding and colonial policy. The crisis has three distinct dimensions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Infrastructure Gap
    \nThe Assembly of First Nations estimates that the capital cost to close the First Nations infrastructure gap will be $135 billion by 2030. Housing represents the single largest liability within this gap.\u2078 This deficit will only grow, made worse by a younger, rapidly growing Indigenous population that requires new family homes at higher rates than ever.<\/li>\n
  2. Housing Conditions
    \nAccording to the 2021 Census, 16.4% of First Nations people on-reserve live in a property requiring major repairs, including structural failure, inadequate insulation, and lack of potable water, compared to just 5.7% of the non-Indigenous population.\u2079. In Inuit Nunangat, the situation is even worse, with over 50% of Inuit living in overcrowded conditions, leading to severe social stress.<\/li>\n
  3. Economic Burden & Poverty
    \nShelter costs on reserve are disproportionately high relative to income. Statistics Canada data shows that many households are trapped in core housing needs, spending more than 30%, and often up to 50%, of their income on shelter. \u00b9\u2070 This prevents communities from participating in the economy and traps families in cycles of poverty.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    2.3 Health and Social Determinants<\/h4>\n

    Housing is directly linked to health. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) specifically links poor housing conditions, especially overcrowding and mold, to lower self-rated health and well-being among First Nations, M\u00e9tis, and Inuit populations.\u00b9\u00b9<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Respiratory Illness: Scholarly research shows that “crowding remains a significant risk factor for tuberculosis” and respiratory tract infections in Indigenous communities.\u00b9\u00b2<\/li>\n
    • Chronic Disease: Mold growth, prevalent in poorly constructed on-reserve homes due to inadequate ventilation standards in previous federal programs, is a direct cause of asthma and hospitalization due to respiratory illnesses.\u00b9\u00b3<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      3. Detailed Problem Statement: The Competition Trap<\/h3>\n

      The core policy failure of the current BCH design is its reliance on a competitive, application-based model to allocate rights-based funding. This model creates structural barriers that small adjustments can\u2019t fix.<\/p>\n

      3.1 Administrative Exclusion<\/h4>\n

      Under the status quo, Indigenous communities must apply for BCH funding in competition with municipalities and private developers. Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) acknowledged in its 2023 Annual Report that closing socio-economic gaps requires “distinctions-based” approaches, yet the BCH model largely ignores this.\u00b9\u2074<\/p>\n

      The Auditor General has criticized this “programmatic” approach.\u00b9\u2075 To win funding, a First Nations community must often produce complex engineering studies, environmental assessments, and financial assessments at its own expense. Small communities lack the proposal writing departments found in cities like Toronto or Vancouver.<\/p>\n

      3.2 The “Industrial” Issue<\/h4>\n

      The federal push for an industrial housing strategy prioritizes standardization.\u00b9\u2076 However, Indigenous scholars like Yale Belanger and Gabrielle Weasel Head emphasize that housing success for Indigenous peoples is tied to “land-based” identity.\u00b9\u2077 Standardized, factory-built units often fail in northern climates and do not accommodate extended family structures (multigenerational living) common in Indigenous cultures.\u00b9\u2078<\/p>\n

      3.3 Loss of Self-Determination<\/h4>\n

      The current model requires Indigenous governments to seek federal approval for local housing priorities. This contradicts the findings of the Evaluation of the On-Reserve Housing Program<\/em>, which noted that outcomes are inconsistent when programs are not devolved to community control.\u00b9\u2079<\/p>\n

      Sylvia McAdam argues that true housing sovereignty means communities must have the authority to set their own building codes and financing terms, free from the constrictions of the Indian Act<\/em> or federal agencies.\u00b2\u2070 The Indian Act<\/em> currently prevents First Nations from leveraging land as collateral for mortgages in the same way municipalities can, placing them at a large disadvantage in BCH\u2019s public-private partnership models.<\/p>\n

      4 Social Return on Investment (SROI)<\/h3>\n

      Investing in Indigenous housing generates a multiplier effect that exceeds standard infrastructure spending. The Canadian Climate Institute has found that for every $1 invested in Indigenous housing, it provides a social return on investment of approximately $6.79, including around $3.12 in government savings on healthcare, justice, and social services.\u00b2\u00b9<\/p>\n

      4.1 Economic Leakage and Local Capacity<\/h4>\n

      Current federal procurement often mandates the use of large, external contractors. This results in economic leakage, where housing dollars leave the community immediately. A distinction-based stream (Option 2) allows for procurement policies that favour Indigenous-owned construction firms. As noted by the Assembly of First Nations, housing investments should double as job creation programs, building a local skilled trades workforce that remains in the community to maintain the development.\u00b2\u00b2<\/p>\n

      5. Policy Options Analysis<\/h3>\n

      Option 1: Status Quo<\/h4>\n

      Description: Indigenous governments and organizations continue to apply for funding through the general BCH streams (e.g., Public Lands Fund, Industrial Strategy Fund).<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Pros:\n
          \n
        • Administrative simplicity for the federal government.<\/li>\n
        • Unified procurement standards and oversight.<\/li>\n
        • Potential for Indigenous businesses to partner with large industry players.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
        • Cons:\n
            \n
          • Inequity: Structurally disadvantages communities with lower administrative capacity.<\/li>\n
          • Inadequacy: Fails to allocate funds to address the $135B gap identified by the AFN.<\/li>\n
          • Health Risk: Does not prioritize renovations for mold damage, focusing instead on new units.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
          • Conclusion: This option perpetuates the housing gap and guarantees continued criticism from the Auditor General and Indigenous partners.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            Option 2: Distinctions-Based Funding Streams (Recommended)<\/h4>\n

            Description: Establish dedicated, statutory funding within BCH for First Nations, Inuit, and M\u00e9tis governments, plus a specific stream for Urban\/Rural Indigenous service providers. These funds would be transferred to Indigenous-led governance bodies (e.g., a National Indigenous Housing Centre).<\/p>\n

              \n
            • Pros:\n
                \n
              • Rights Compliance: Aligns with UNDRIP Articles 21 and 23.<\/li>\n
              • Effective: The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association argues that a “For Indigenous, By Indigenous” (FIBI) strategy is the only way to address urban Indigenous homelessness effectively.\u00b2\u00b3<\/li>\n
              • Culturally Safer: Allows for the adoption of land-based architectural designs.<\/li>\n
              • Flexible: Funds can be used for core needs (renovations) rather than just new builds.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
              • Cons:\n
                  \n
                • Requires significant initial governance setup.<\/li>\n
                • Potential tension regarding allocation of funds between distinctions (e.g., First Nations vs. M\u00e9tis allocations).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Option 3: Partnership Agreements<\/h4>\n

                  Description: BCH signs Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with National Indigenous Organizations (NIOs) to consult on project selection, without creating separate funding pots.<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  • Pros:\n
                      \n
                    • Improves communication compared to the status quo.<\/li>\n
                    • Aligns with the consultation rhetoric in ISC reports.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                    • Cons:\n
                        \n
                      • Bias: Ultimate decision-making power remains with the Minister\/BCH.<\/li>\n
                      • Instability: Agreements can be cancelled by future governments; they lack the permanence of legislation.<\/li>\n
                      • Urban Gaps: Likely excludes urban Indigenous communities who are not represented by the primary NIOs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                        6. Recommendation<\/h3>\n

                        The Government of Canada should adopt Option 2.<\/p>\n

                        Build Canada Homes must amend its operating charter to create a Distinctions-Based Indigenous Housing Stream, capitalizing it at a level that is equal to the needs identified by the Assembly of First Nations and Parliamentary Budget Officer.<\/p>\n

                        Rationale:<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. Alignment with Evidence: Statistics Canada data proves that Indigenous housing conditions are structurally different from non-Indigenous conditions. Treating them identically in a general fund is poor policy.\u00b2\u2074<\/li>\n
                        2. De-Risking the Portfolio: By transferring decision-making to Indigenous bodies, the federal government removes itself from the liability of project management, shifting to a role of funder rather than builder.<\/li>\n
                        3. Sovereignty as a Strategy: McAdam and the Yellowhead Institute demonstrate that when communities control the process of building, not just the product, outcomes improve. Community ownership leads to better maintenance and longer asset lifespans.\u00b2\u2075<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          7. Implementation Strategy<\/h3>\n

                          To implement Option 2, a phased approach is proposed to ensure stability and capacity building.<\/p>\n

                          Phase 1: Governance & Design<\/h4>\n
                            \n
                          • Establish the Table: Convene a “BCH Indigenous Governance Council” made up of the AFN, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), M\u00e9tis National Council (MNC), and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association\u2019s Indigenous Caucus (representing urban providers).<\/li>\n
                          • Defining Innovation: Move beyond the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) definition of “industrial” efficiency. Innovation in this stream should be defined as community resilience, incentivizing projects that use local materials, local labour, and renewable energy.<\/li>\n
                          • Legislative Adjustment: Amend the Build Canada Homes Act<\/em> (or founding charter) to protect the Indigenous stream from future budget cuts, ensuring it is treated as a treaty obligation instead of discretionary spending.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                            Phase 2: Capacity Building & Pre-Development<\/h4>\n
                              \n
                            • Pre-Development Grants: Address the “shovel-ready” barrier. Provide non-competitive grants to communities to hire Housing Managers, draft community plans, and perform soil testing. This directly answers the capacity gaps noted by ISC.\u00b2\u2076<\/li>\n
                            • Urban Strategy: Formally recognize the AHMA strategy as the delivery mechanism for British Columbia and pilot similar models nationally. This closes the jurisdictional gap for Indigenous people living off reserve.\u00b2\u2077<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                              Phase 3: Capital Distribution<\/h4>\n
                                \n
                              • Block Transfers: Move from project-by-project approvals to multiyear block transfers for First Nations with certified housing plans. This reduces the administrative burden cited by the Auditor General.<\/li>\n
                              • Procurement Strategy: Implement a certain allocation within the larger BCH supply chain. If BCH is ordering 10,000 modular units, a percentage must be sourced from Indigenous-owned modular factories, boosting the Indigenous economy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                8. Conclusion<\/h3>\n

                                The status quo of Build Canada Homes, characterized by generalist competitions and industrial standardization, risks being a 21st-century repetition of 20th-century colonial planning. The evidence from the Assembly of First Nations, Statistics Canada, and Indigenous scholars is clear: a generic solution is ineffective in reconciling a gap too large and needs too specific.<\/p>\n

                                By adopting a distinction-based governance model, the federal government can transform BCH from a construction agency into a method of reconciliation. As stated by the Yellowhead Institute, the true innovation required is not technological, but jurisdictional. This is not just about building houses; it is about building the capacity for Indigenous nations to house themselves, restoring the self-reliance that was systematically dismantled by the Indian Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n

                                \n

                                \"\"<\/p>\n

                                Robert Trottier is a graduate student at Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, where he pursuing his Masters of International Affairs with a specialization in diplomacy. He received his Bachelor’s double honours in Politics & International Relations and Criminology from King’s University College at The University of Western Ontario. His research focuses on economic development, with a particular focus on Ethiopia, while more broadly examining how impactful policies can drive sustainable growth and stability. His areas of interest include political economy, development, and the role of institutions in shaping long-term economic outcomes.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                \n

                                Endnotes<\/h3>\n
                                  \n
                                1. Infrastructure Canada. (2024). Build Canada Homes: Early investments and initiatives<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                2. Assembly of First Nations. (2024, April). Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030: National cost estimate (English Report 1) [Report].<\/li>\n
                                3. Statistics Canada. (2022). Indigenous identity by Registered or Treaty Indian status and residence by Indigenous geography: Canada, provinces and territories. Table 98-10-0264-01, 2021 Census.<\/li>\n
                                4. Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). (2024a). Appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Report 2, Housing in First Nations Communities, 2024<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                5. Canada, Department of Finance. (2024). Government announces new action to build more than 5,000 affordable homes…<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                6. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2024). Government of Canada launches consultation on an industrial housing strategy for homebuilding<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                7. Crown\u2013Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, (2019).Inuit Nunangat Housing Strategy<\/em><\/li>\n
                                8. Assembly of First Nations, (2023). The housing gap<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                9. Statistics Canada. (2022a, September 21). Housing conditions among First Nations people, M\u00e9tis and Inuit in Canada from the 2021 Census<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                10. Statistics Canada. (2022b). A first look at shelter costs for households living on reserve using new data from the 2021 Census<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                11. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). (2023). Housing experiences and measures of health and well-being among First Nations people living off reserve, M\u00e9tis and Inuit<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                12. Larcombe, L., et al. (2011). Housing conditions and tuberculosis in First Nations communities in Manitoba. International Journal of Circumpolar Health<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                13. Optis, M., et al. (2012). Mold growth in on-reserve homes in Canada. National Research Council Canada<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                14. Indigenous Services Canada. (2023). Annual report to Parliament 2023<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                15. ISC, (2024) Appearance before the Standing Committee<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                16. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Industrial housing strategy<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                17. Belanger, Y., & Weasel Head, G. (2013). We Need Is Our Land: Exploring Southern Alberta Urban Aboriginal Homelessness<\/em>. University of Lethbridge.<\/li>\n
                                18. Canadian Climate Institute, (2024). Beyond sustainability: The power of Indigenous healthy energy homes.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                19. McAdam, S. (2015). Nationhood Interrupted: Revitalizing n\u00eahiyaw Legal Systems<\/em>. Purich Publishing.<\/li>\n
                                20. Indigenous Services Canada. (2024b). Evaluation of the On-Reserve Housing Program: Final draft report<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                21. Canadian Climate Institute (2025). \u201cIndigenous housing inequality in Canada will drive up costs and health risks without policy changes: report.\u201d<\/li>\n
                                22. Assembly of First Nations, (2023). Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                23. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA). (2020). For Indigenous, By Indigenous (FIBI): National Housing Strategy<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                24. Statistics Canada, (2022). \u201cHousing conditions among First Nations people, M\u00e9tis and Inuit in Canada from the 2021 Census,\u201d<\/li>\n
                                25. Yellowhead Institute. (2022). An Indigenous Housing Innovation Challenge? Start with the Basics<\/em>. Toronto Metropolitan University.<\/li>\n
                                26. ISC, (2024). Evaluation of the On-Reserve Housing Program<\/em>.<\/li>\n
                                27. AHMA (2022), British Columbia Urban, Rural, and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                  TO: The Honourable Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities CC: The Prime Minister\u2019s Office (PMO); The Treasury Board Secretariat; The Minister of Indigenous Services DATE: December 9, 2025 Executive Summary The federal government\u2019s launch of Build Canada Homes (BCH) shows a shift in housing policy. Capitalized to “supercharge” supply through industrial strategies and faster financing, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24525,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2044"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24525"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2044"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2044\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2061,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2044\/revisions\/2061"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/pardeeatlas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}