National housing numbers for First Nations, Métis and Inuit are useful, but they will not write your housing plan for you. The 2021 Census, the Auditor General and the Assembly of First Nations all show a large gap, yet each measures it differently. A band council or housing department makes its strongest case when it knows what each figure means, and backs it with its own unit-by-unit data.
This post is about data literacy for decision makers: what the main national sources say, why their numbers do not always match, what local data to collect, and how to turn it into a plan someone can fund. It is general information, not program or legal advice. Confirm current requirements with Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), CMHC or your regional office.
What does the 2021 Census say about Indigenous housing?
Statistics Canada released its 2021 Census results on Indigenous people in The Daily on September 21, 2022. The housing figures describe people, not dwellings, and all refer to 2021:
- Major repairs: 16.4% of Indigenous people lived in a dwelling that needed major repairs, compared with 5.7% of the non-Indigenous population. By group: Métis 10.0%, First Nations people 19.7%, Inuit 26.2%.
- Crowding: 17.1% of Indigenous people lived in crowded housing, meaning housing "not suitable for the number of people who lived there according to the National Occupancy Standard." The non-Indigenous figure was 9.4%. By group: Inuit 40.1%, First Nations people 21.4%, Métis 7.9%.
- On and off reserve: 37.4% of First Nations people with Registered or Treaty Indian status living on reserve lived in a dwelling needing major repairs, compared with 12.7% off reserve. For crowding, it was 35.7% on reserve and 18.4% off reserve.
- Inside and outside Inuit Nunangat: 32.7% of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat lived in a dwelling needing major repairs, compared with 11.5% outside it. For crowding, it was 52.9% and 11.4%.
The same release shows why need keeps growing. The Indigenous population grew 9.4% from 2016 to 2021, and Statistics Canada says it "could reach between 2.5 million and 3.2 million over the next 20 years." In 2021 the average age was 33.6 years, compared with 41.8 for the non-Indigenous population. A young, growing population means new households forming every year, and a housing plan has to count them.
Why do two crowding figures from the same census look so different?
This is the most common trap. ISC's report on socio-economic gaps, which uses custom tabulations of the 2021 Census, reports that 11.3% of dwellings of Registered Indians living on reserve were crowded in 2021. The Daily reports 35.7% for the same group. Both are correct. They measure different things:
- Unit of count. The Daily counts people living in crowded housing. ISC counts dwellings. Large households live in crowded homes, so a share of people will always run higher than a share of homes.
- Definition. The Daily uses housing suitability under the National Occupancy Standard, which asks whether there are enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of the household. ISC's crowding indicator is the "percentage of dwellings classified as crowded (i.e., having more than one person per room)."
The same split applies to repairs. ISC reports 34.0% of on-reserve Registered Indian dwellings needed major repairs in 2021, close to but not the same as the Daily's 37.4% of people. When you put a figure in a council briefing or a proposal, say what it counts (people, households or dwellings), which definition it uses, and its reference year. A reviewer who spots two "crowding" figures that disagree will trust the whole document less.
Why can't you find core housing need for your reserve?
Core housing need is CMHC's headline measure. In CMHC's definition, a household is in core housing need when it falls below at least one of three standards and "would have to spend 30% or more of its before-tax household income to access local housing that meets all three standards." The standards are:
- Adequacy: the home is not in need of major repairs.
- Suitability: there are enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of the household.
- Affordability: housing costs less than 30% of before-tax household income.
The catch: CMHC states that core housing need "doesn't include farms, reserves" and some low or no-income households. So you will not find a core housing need rate for households on reserve. For on-reserve planning, work with the two parts that do apply, adequacy (major repairs) and suitability (crowding), and add your own counts of households waiting for a home. Off reserve, core housing need can be a useful comparison, but check which households a given table covers.
What do the Auditor General and the AFN say about the gap?
The Auditor General's March 2024 report on housing in First Nations communities is the most detailed recent audit. Its key findings:
- ISC data from 2021–22 indicated about 119,000 housing units in roughly 600 First Nations communities in the provinces.
- Citing a 2021 AFN report, the audit used a need of 55,320 new units and repairs to 80,650 existing units, at an estimated cost of $44 billion.
- From 2018–19 to 2022–23, ISC and CMHC funded 11,754 new units and 15,859 repairs: 21% of the new units and 20% of the repairs needed to close the gap.
- From 2015–16 to 2021–22, homes needing major repairs went from 20.8% to 19.7%, while homes needing replacement rose from 5.6% to 6.5%. The auditors found "no meaningful improvement."
- Funding was not prioritized by need. Small communities (fewer than 100 units) where 75% or more of units needed major repairs or replacement were approved for an average of $1.99 million in targeted funding over five years, compared with $2.56 million for small communities in better condition.
- On mould, only one ISC regional office (Alberta) collected information, so neither agency knew how big the problem was.
The AFN's housing gap page now gives a larger figure from its Closing the Infrastructure Gap work, developed between 2022 and 2023: 157,453 new homes needed, and roughly $135 billion to close the gap (the page gives both $135.1 billion and $135.2 billion). The jump from $44 billion is not a contradiction. The estimates were made at different times, with different scopes and methods. Quote the estimate that fits your point, name its source and year, and do not mix them in one calculation.
Two lessons for a housing department. First, the condition figures the auditors used come from ISC's Community Infrastructure and Housing annual reports, which draw on what communities report. Accurate annual reporting shapes the national picture. Second, the audit found the worst-off communities were not reliably funded first. Documented, specific need is your best protection against being overlooked.
What local data should your housing department gather?
National data shows the scale. A funder will ask about your community. A 2020 technical report on on-reserve housing and related infrastructure needs, from a First Nations-led survey of 309 communities in seven regions, found that 65.4% of respondents kept up-to-date housing condition assessment records and 46.6% had done a formal housing needs assessment. 64% had no asset management system for housing. The report states its results are not nationally representative. Even so, it suggests many communities have gaps in their own records. A practical baseline includes:
- A unit register. Every unit, its address or lot, type, year built, bedrooms, ownership (band-owned, rent-to-own, private) and any CMHC agreement.
- Unit-by-unit condition assessments. The AFN report describes these as formal inspections rating each unit (for example good, fair, poor) and listing required repairs. Record mould separately, since the Auditor General found it is poorly tracked.
- Repair and maintenance costs per unit. These show which homes cost more to keep than to replace.
- A waitlist kept up to date. Record household size and make-up, current living situation, accessibility needs and date applied, and remove duplicates and households already housed.
- Crowding counts by household. Use the National Occupancy Standard bedroom test so your numbers line up with the Census, and record families doubled up or living with relatives.
- Population projections. Use your membership list for age groups, young adults about to form households, and members off reserve who want to return.
- Serviced lots and servicing capacity. Count lots ready to build on and how many units your water, wastewater and roads can take. The same AFN report found an average of 9.5 serviced lots available per community, against 82.5 more needed.
Collect this under your own data governance. The AFN report notes that the First Nations Information Governance Centre's mission is to "strengthen First Nations' data sovereignty" at the community level. Decide who holds the data, who can see household-level records, and what is shared outside the community, before you collect it.
How do you turn the data into a housing plan and a capital ask?
A simple, transparent method is easier to defend than a complicated one. One approach:
- Current shortfall. Count households in crowded homes or on the waitlist, removing any household counted twice. That is new units needed today.
- Replacement. Add units your condition assessments rate as beyond economical repair.
- Repairs. List units needing major repairs, with estimated costs from your assessments.
- Growth. Add the households your projections say will form over five and ten years.
- Subtract the pipeline. Remove units already funded or under construction.
- Match to land and services. Compare the total with serviced lots and servicing capacity. Where lots run out, lot servicing becomes part of the ask.
- Prioritize and phase. Rank by health and safety, crowding and repair severity, and set out a year-by-year build and repair schedule.
The result feeds your capital plan and the infrastructure investment planning your funders ask for. This post does not cover the programs themselves. For a program-by-program guide to ISC and CMHC funding, see our guide to funding modular buildings for First Nations.
How do you present the case so a funder can act on it?
- Give a reference year for every figure, and say whether it counts people, households or dwellings.
- Put local numbers next to national ones. For example: "In 2021, 35.7% of status First Nations people on reserve lived in crowded housing (Statistics Canada). In our community, our 2026 household count found X."
- Show the trend. Two condition surveys a few years apart show whether things are getting better or worse, which a single snapshot cannot.
- Be clear about gaps. If you have not inspected every unit, say how many you did. A stated limit is more credible than a number with no explanation.
- Keep one master dataset so the housing plan, the capital plan and every application tell the same story.
Where does a builder fit in?
Once your plan sets the number and type of units, the delivery method affects how fast the need is met. Herauf Modular builds homes and community buildings as finished sections indoors in its Saskatchewan and BC plants, then delivers and sets them on site. Most builds are manufactured and delivered in about 16 weeks, with foundations, pads and services prepared on site at the same time, and every unit meets or exceeds CSA A277 and the National Building Code for climate zones 6 through 8. At Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement in Alberta, 20 homes were delivered with CMHC and government agencies and installed within days. For how factory-built homes reach remote and fly-in sites, see why modular works for Indigenous housing and modular housing for remote communities.
Herauf does not administer funding, apply on a community's behalf or promise eligibility. We can give your housing team unit types, timelines and pricing to put into your plan. Contact us. We reply within one business day.
This guide is general information, not legal or financial advice. Program rules change: confirm the details with the program, your Indigenous Services Canada regional office or CMHC before relying on them. Herauf does not administer any program or apply on a community's behalf.