Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 11 - Evidence - February 25, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:50 p.m. to study the challenges relating to First Nations infrastructure on reserves.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in the room, via CPAC or the web.
I am Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada generally. This evening we are hearing testimony on a specific order of reference authorizing us to examine and report on the challenges and potential solutions relating to infrastructure on reserves, including: housing, community infrastructure; and innovative opportunities for financing and more effective collaborative strategies.
We have completed hearings on housing and we are now focusing our study on infrastructure. Of course, the two issues overlap.
Today, we will hear from three witnesses, or three groups of witnesses: the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and two participants in its First Nations-Municipal Community Infrastructure Partnership Program. We are very pleased to have that evidence.
The federation is a national organization that was formed in 1901 to represent municipalities in Canada. It addresses numerous issues affecting municipalities including infrastructure, environmental issues and housing. The federation's representatives are here in person. Good evening, gentlemen. Representatives from the First Nations partners are appearing by video conference from British Columbia. Welcome to you, folks, and thank you for joining us by video.
Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I know you will help me in welcoming our guests. Here in Ottawa we have the Federation of Canadian Municipalities represented by Jacques Nadeau, Director, National Programs; and Mr. Theo Breedon, Manager, Program Development, National Programs. Joining us by video conference from British Columbia is Nak'azdli Indian Band, whose spokesperson is Peter Erickson, Hereditary Chief and Capital, Housing and Lands Administrator, Band Office. In the same location, representing the District of Fort St. James are Rob MacDougall, Mayor, and Kevin Crook, Chief Administrative Officer.
Gentlemen, we very much look forward to your presentations. I understand that we're going to first hear from Mr. Nadeau followed by Mr. Erickson and then Mayor MacDougall. You can expect your presentations to be followed by questions from the senators.
Jacques Nadeau, Director, National Programs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Thank you for the privilege of addressing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, here in Algonquin territory, regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, First Nation-Municipal Community Infrastructure Partnership Program, CIPP.
[Translation]
The FCM has over 200 members representing both large cities and small rural municipalities across the country. Our role is to advocate on behalf of municipalities to the federal government. We recognize that many of the issues that municipalities are struggling with are the same as those facing First Nations, including strained financial and human resources.
The FCM niche is to convene, listen, and unite around common issues. As a neutral third party, we help communities come together for a respectful exploration of challenges and opportunities. We also help them work together in a positive way to overcome any past grievances, find solutions to local challenges, and create a better future together.
[English]
CIPP was developed to assist both municipalities and First Nations improve relations and develop agreements to share services in order to save costs, improve service delivery and enhance collective well-being. CIPP is not an infrastructure-funding program, but a program that provides process support to facilitate the development of joint municipal-type services agreements, particularly on water, between adjacent First Nations and municipalities. Through the process, we aid the development of respectful and trusting relationships between neighbouring communities to serve as a strong foundation for sustainable agreements.
The program is funded by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada via the Community Infrastructure Branch and is managed by FCM. A steering committee composed of senior management from both organizations provides oversight. In addition, CIPP has been endorsed by the Assembly of First Nations, who served on the steering committee for the first four years of the program. At present, we receive advice from First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group in Alberta.
CIPP has been in operation since 2010 and in 2012 won the Institute of Public Administration of Canada Public Sector Leadership Award.
Through CIPP, we offer facilitated community-to-community workshops; regional workshops; peer-to-peer and volunteer mentoring; webinars; and monthly check-ins.
We are in the process of developing an online community of practice that is purpose-driven and solution-oriented. In addition, CIPP has developed multiple online tools and resources including a toolkit that contains agreement templates, case studies and resources for further study. We also have online a collection of joint service agreements from across the country, dealing with a variety of topics including: fire and emergency response; solid waste disposal; transit; and, of course, drinking water and sewage treatment.
[Translation]
In 2014 we adopted a new approach to program delivery to work intensely with six community pairs from across the country. We received over 50 applications representing over 100 First Nation and municipal communities. This map — which I think you have received — shows the communities that applied in purple and those selected in green.
A rigorous selection process included a phone interview with almost 40 shortlisted communities. Selection criteria included: community proximity, desire to work on water infrastructure, community relationships and history of collaboration.
To date, we have worked successfully with almost 100 communities and supported the development of 31 communications and service agreements that have enhanced the quality of life of residents and the economic productivity of the communities. Approximately 50 more such agreements are in various stages of development. We recently had an inquiry from the Government of Western Australia about the program and how it might be adapted for their use.
[English]
One of the community pairs that we worked with was Nak'azdli First Nation and the municipality of Fort St. James in B.C. They are with us today via web link to tell you in their own words about what the program has meant to them.
I would like to introduce Hereditary Chief Peter Erickson from Nak'azdli First Nation, Mayor Rob MacDougall and Chief Operations Officer Kevin Crook from the Municipality of Fort St. James.
Thank you for this opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: We will look forward to hearing from Hereditary Chief Erickson and Mayor MacDougall.
Peter Erickson, Hereditary Chief and Capital, Housing and Lands Administrator, Band Office, Nak'azdli Indian Band: Thank you, senators. I thank all senators for taking time out to hear our concerns today. Thank you for the invitation and all the assistance and community support receive. We really appreciate it.
Recent events and efforts of the Canadian Infrastructure Partnership Program have led to a base agreement in our area to address mutual infrastructure problems and maybe solve some of the outstanding issues that are becoming more cumbersome by the year.
Nak'azdli is a community of 1,800 persons and a housing base of 210 housing units that leaves many of our community members literally homeless. Many more are second-generation people living away from our community in order to find housing. We lack pavement and basic infrastructure to accommodate any more members in our community. Industrial intrusion into our area has led to an extremely unsafe situation and to the death of an 11-year- old child.
We are the second community to lack a secure water source and are limited by homes. Upgrades to both sewer and water are needed to allow that community to grow. The CIPP was brought in to address the primary issue of a joint sewer and water system that is extremely problematic in our community.
Our neighbours were granted land reserves in that community in 1969 and initially it was not a problem. However, it now makes up to one-third of our community uninhabitable due to extreme odour emissions and to date the district does not have the funds to repair the system, and there seems to be no action because it does not affect anybody except our community. The Community Infrastructure Partnership Program stepped in and mediated an agreement to allow dialogue to address the problem and get solutions. It has led to meetings and a baseline sharing of information.
I think progress is possible, but there is a greater need for a federal-provincial body to take the whole problem and address it with one solution. Currently, we use a two-solution system such that the district addresses their problems and we as a community address our problems. Many times that has led to little being done on each side.
Getting our communities together is the beginning, but keeping that journey going will take much more. The task of creating a situation between the two governments and the district and our community to work together is daunting. However, what we have seen come forward so far in the work that has been done through the agreement and also through the federation has been very positive.
For a simple thing like us coming to agreement to address a problem and agreeing that we should be working on it together, we walk away from a meeting with different timelines, different funding sources, different governments to answer to, and many times it gets lost in the two-stream system.
I think we're on the right path in getting third-party mediation, and it's worked positively so far. We're currently addressing a housing crisis and need for immediate infrastructure requiring a very large sum of money while trying to partner with the community on projects we do not even have on our radar. While seemingly impossible, I think there is hope to bring our communities together, seeking solutions and recognizing change in the traditional relationship which has brought us to this point.
Minor examples, our O&M budget is currently totally underfunded and has never finished outside a deficit. We recently reserved a new school which we co-funded with the federal government. Their O&M budget on an $8 million school is $15,000. I think that's going to be one of the solutions, to get common language to address very multi-facetted problems.
Again, senators, I thank you for your time, and I hope to work with you in the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Did I understand that Mr. Erickson, the housing and lands administrator in the band office, would also like to make a presentation?
Mr. Erickson: That was me.
The Chair: Pardon me. It is Mayor MacDougall. Did you want to make a presentation, your worship?
Rob MacDougall, Mayor, District of Fort St. James: If I could, please.
Honourable senators, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to hear our presentation. I would like to acknowledge that the Fort St. James municipality is located within the Nak'azdli band's traditional territory, and with that acknowledgment comes respect for the land, the people and the culture.
Some of the issues that Peter Erickson talked about, I'm hoping we can help to correct some of those through the recently the signed protocol agreement, and the Community Infrastructure Partnership Program was instrumental in having that protocol agreement brought forward.
It is an historic agreement. Fort St. James was established in 1806, so this year we celebrate our 209th birthday, and we have never had any type of formal agreement that says that we will work together for the betterment of our entire community. This protocol agreement will guide the two parties in strengthening our relationship, preparing joint service agreements, scheduling regular communications, addressing cultural differences but also commonalties, building a collective vision and identifying areas of collaboration, to name a few.
We not only have a protocol agreement, but we also have signed a five-year water and sewer service agreement. Previously to that, we had one- to three-year agreements, so that is also a benefit from this protocol agreement.
CIPP helped us through this process by facilitating conversation, identifying the strengths and opportunities, providing information on existing protocol agreements, providing advice on amendments to service agreements, and drafting the protocol agreement based on conversations and what has led to the final agreement and this signing.
The strengths of CIPP are a wealth of information and knowledge, competent and friendly facilitators, and, for our communities, no cost. Not only did CIPP meet our expectations, it exceeded them. The process started in June of 2013 and, in less than a year, in June of 2014, the final agreement was presented, agreed to and signed by both councils. I feel that is very efficient and would encourage the federal government to maintain the program moving forward.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, your worship. I wonder, for the benefit of the committee, if you could explain to us what the distance is between Fort St. James and Nak'azdli.
Mr. MacDougall: We have a street called Kwah Road and that is our boundary. We're one community with, I guess, a barrier that has been there, and the reason for that is because, as Peter said, the two levels of government, one being the municipal and one being federal, and they're totally different in the way they operate.
The Chair: If I could ask the chief, do you have own-source revenues and was that a factor in your being able to sign this agreement with Fort St. James?
Mr. Erickson: We're mostly reliant on funding. We do have our own economic drivers within the community that benefit both of our communities. We opened one of the largest grocery store in the area. Also, we have entered into selling gasoline for both communities in their entirety.
The Chair: Thank you. I should tell you that the quality of the audio in the transmission is not ideal, so I'm going to ask you another basic question just to go over what you had said before I open it to other questions.
I understood, from Chief Erickson, that you had a very serious problem with the water and sewer system. Upgrades were very sorely needed and parts of the community were uninhabitable because of the problems with the system. Now, you've reached an agreement to collaborate with the municipality. Could you explain how that agreement may have improved the water and sewage system that you described as being so problematic?
Mr. Erickson: Yes. What we had to do was to look at the problem from both sides. From the municipal side, the system worked. From our side, it's been a huge, huge problem. What we decided to do was to look at the whole system from both sides and then look for solutions. So we've invited companies, or one company to date, and also we're holding an ongoing dialogue to address the problem. More of that came from our side because, as I said, from sort of a technical side, the system worked. From our side, it's been nothing but a problem.
The Chair: I wonder if you could tell us: What was it that allowed you to achieve this agreement? These are well- established communities. Fort St. James is a very long-standing community, and I'm sure the First Nation community is as well. For all of those years, there wasn't this kind of cooperation. What was it that allowed this to happen in the last couple of years? What were the factors in getting the agreement?
Mr. Erickson: I think the biggest factor is that we have an agreement where we accept water and sewer. Then they, in turn, pay us a rent for the land for the sewage lagoon. It's much more than that, because we share a common waste disposal system for garbage and many things. What this has led to it is that there has been a slowdown in funds on all levels of government. I think we have to start talking more and more, doing more with what we have and combining our knowledge. I don't mean to sound facetious, but the little funds that we get between the two led us talking. Then, the opportunity came along, through the CIPP program, to further those talks.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this evening. My first question is really very basic, and that is: If we look at the map that was provided to us by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is this community on the map?
Mr. Nadeau: Yes, it is.
Senator Dyck: The green, the six. So you're located in southern B.C.?
Mr. Nadeau: No.
Senator Dyck: I don't see a green further north, though.
Theo Breedon, Manager, Program Development, National Programs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Just a clarification on the map, CIPP is now in its third phase, so we worked with Nak'azdli and Fort St. James in phase 2. The map represents the 55 communities that applied for our current phase, and then the six green balloons are current communities we are working with.
Senator Dyck: Oh, okay. So they're not on this map.
Mr. Breedon: Yes.
Senator Dyck: So Fort St. James is further north?
Mr. Breedon: Likely, depending on your reference point, yes.
Senator Dyck: I'm trying to wrap my head around what the partnership provides. Does the partnership then apply if you have a municipality and a First Nation, and let's say the First Nation does not have a water treatment plant, does this partnership allow for a water treatment plant to be built in the municipality or the First Nation, or is it utilizing mostly what the municipality already has and extending it to a First Nation?
Mr. Breedon: There are many different scenarios of communities with whom we are working. A number of communities have an existing water and wastewater plant within the municipality, and they already have a shared- service agreement with their adjacent First Nation. It might need to be renewed. It might need to be updated. It might be required to encompass a number of different service agreements, such as solid waste disposal, fire control, emergency preparedness and so on and so forth.
We have had examples where there has been a water and wastewater facility within the First Nation, and the agreement has been between the First Nation and the municipality on share agreements.
There are a multiplicity of different scenarios, and the role of the federation is really to act as a third-party convener to say, "Where you currently are as two communities, how would you like to further your discussions and further your relationship to achieve what is of benefit to both the communities and to the region?''
Senator Dyck: Mr. Erickson, when you were doing your presentation, you talked about funding situations, and you were talking about there not being enough money to go around to fund the kinds of services that you want. I wonder if you could expand upon that and tell us what you think needs to be done to alleviate that funding situation.
Mr. Erickson: The biggest thing is to have our infrastructure match with the community next door. The amount of traffic in our community is similar to our neighbour's, but we have no sidewalks. We have no pavement. We lack basic street lighting to a standard that allows communities to be on the same level.
Also, the main highway goes right through the middle of our community, and it goes through the business district of the neighbouring community. So they don't see the impact that we see, where we have to have our children running across a highway that has 1,200 industrial trucks a day.
The amount of money we get for infrastructure is minimal to the point where we have to apply for extra funds just to have someone to take care of our sewer, water and garbage.
So we don't get the funding level that the neighbours do. It's hard for us to talk to the neighbours when they get their funding in one scenario and we get the funding from the other. It's lead to a situation where outside forces have affected both communities. Heavy industry and increased logging have led to a problem where our infrastructure simply cannot keep up. It's unsafe, also, because we've lacked funding for basic infrastructure. We have eight building lots available and we need 150. We simply don't have the funds. The paving situation to make the road safer was just put back by five years and that's the extended capital fund.
Senator Dyck: To follow up on that, you're basically saying you would like to have funding that's equivalent to your neighbouring municipality?
Mr. Erickson: In some instances, yes, or a fund that's looking after the infrastructure on an ongoing level, a more future-based model as opposed to our current five-year model or another model. What's led to this is a problem started in 1969 where we're looking forward to the problem we have now, where it's sort of . . . our community and there's no way for us to have the money to fix that.
Senator Dyck: My last question would be: In terms of comparison with the situation between your First Nation and the municipality close by, is it possible to get dollar figures to do a comparison between the amount that you receive for infrastructure versus the neighbouring municipality? Does anyone have those kinds of statistics, to your knowledge, or maybe to the federation people as well?
Mr. Erickson: I think one of the issues there is that we get infrastructure dollars based on, say, a new subdivision or infrastructure dollars based on different ways they're tallied versus a municipality that's based on the amount of lots they have. We get a lot of funds based on different parameters, I think. We could probably break it down, but I think the way we get funding is quite significantly different.
Mr. Nadeau: No, we don't have any specific number to give you for that example.
Senator Dyck: Would you have a suggestion as to where it could be obtained?
Mr. Nadeau: I think probably the municipality or the community are best to provide you this information, because I think it varies from region, from province, from situation.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
The Chair: Before turning to Senator Enverga, a question about funding for the First Nation. We understand that, according to the Aboriginal Affairs Program Guide for the B.C. region, the department says they provide subsidies for First Nations who signed municipal service agreements. Could I ask, then, if your First Nation received subsidies for municipal service agreements as a result of your signing this agreement?
Mr. Erickson: To date we haven't received funds as a result of that agreement.
The Chair: That's a little surprising, based on the program guide for 2013-14, but thank you for that answer.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentations.
My first question will be for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Has the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had experiences with agreements between the First Nations and municipalities that were unsuccessful? What are some reasons why they are not successful? Can you let us know?
Mr. Breedon: As the Hereditary Chief and Mayor MacDougall have said, quite often communities are side by side and they haven't had many opportunities to engage with each other. Where communities are seeing that they require the pooling of funds or are recognizing opportunities around economic development, or wanting to increase or strengthen their relationships together, I think we're starting to see a growing number of adjacent communities come together to look at opportunities.
I think as far as some of the reasons for why there has not been success, quite often there is not community buy-in — so community consultations and community engagement — around having a First Nation in an adjacent municipality that wants to engage in collaborative and cooperative dialogue, sharing of cultural events and really working together. I think sometimes it has been timing as well, especially from a political process, in that there might be leadership, as we see with our communities present there, in a mayor and a chief, and if a chief or mayor does not win an election during the election cycle, then that leadership may not be as evident as it once was.
Some of the things that we try to do through CIPP is to ensure that there is significant community engagement so that the constituents of both parties or both communities really champion the cause of this First Nation municipal collaboration, as well as entering into agreements such as a communications protocol or a long-term service agreement that's accountable and transparent so that any new chiefs, mayors or other councils are bound to it, recognize the benefits to it, and would see those types of relationships last in perpetuity. Really institutionalizing the good work that people at the political level do and ensuring that there is buy-in from both the political and technical level, I think, can overcome some of those hurdles of where it might not have been successful in the past.
Senator Enverga: Is there a role for the government to play so that you have more success in the future? What do you suggest?
Mr. Breedon: I would say from a provincial and federal level, to showcase the many different examples of First Nations and municipalities that have been working in collaboration either on shared agreements, infrastructure agreements; on joint economic development; or on holding up the relationships that they have developed over time. This could be from a small, rural perspective — like the communities with whom we are talking to now — as well as the larger urban examples that we have and that are growing across the country. I think of Musqueam band or Musqueam First Nation and the City of Vancouver that recognized their year of reconciliation; and the City of Edmonton and a number of First Nations that are both within and adjacent to and the work of Mayor Iveson. I think all levels of government can promote the good-news stories and counter some of the not-so-good-news stories that we hear in our country.
Senator Enverga: Has the federal government been helpful in some ways to make this thing happen?
Mr. Breedon: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has been very supportive of the CIPP approach, as well as the approach of a similar program that we are running in collaboration with an Aboriginal organization called the Community Economic Development Initiative. We're very proud of the work that we are involved with, in collaboration with the federal government. We are walking the talk of working side by side — an association that represents municipalities and an Aboriginal organization that represents economic development officers — to work with communities across Canada on joint economic development.
We are working with provincial-territorial associations, so those associations that represent their municipalities from a provincial or territorial regional affiliation. We have met with a number of provincial departments, mainly Ministries of Municipal Affairs — Alberta and Manitoba are examples — that would like to showcase these success stories, as well as looking at innovative financing opportunities whereby the municipality might have access to funding, and the funding proposal might be strengthened where they are submitting a proposal that is a joint First Nations- municipal proposal.
There is good work that is already happening, and certainly the good work could be scaled up so that more provinces and federal departments are talking about the success that we see with the people from Fort St. James and the Nak'azdli.
Senator Enverga: For the First Nations, from your point of view, do you see anything that the government can do to make everything successful on your side? Have you seen it in another way? How could the federal government help so you will be able to partner with the municipalities? Is there anything we can do?
Mr. Erickson: I think in looking at that, there would be a way if we could have a better understanding or maybe have a way to do joint submissions, especially for funding, where right now we're looking for money to not only improve the water quality in Fort St. James, but also to alleviate the issue with the sewage in the area.
For our second community that I said we didn't have the infrastructure for, I can apply directly to the federal government, but when we work with Fort St. James, they have to apply to federal funding and provincial funding. They have to look for loans. So some way that we can actually join those submissions into one or maybe have them looked at by one agency.
Senator Enverga: You want to make it simpler. Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: There are two areas I wanted to talk about. I am aware that there are communities, cities and areas of our country where cooperation and agreements between municipalities and First Nations exist out of necessity, practicality and so forth. I'm aware that in the Okanagan, some communities, some towns, have these agreements with First Nations. It is not a new concept, but I think it is a very good one.
I'm just wondering, do you feel as an association of municipalities whether, in our country, there is a mellowing and openness by big cities and towns to do more, to cooperate more with the First Nations and recognizing that at the very beginning, this was First Nations' land and somehow or another you took it? As compensation, as just recognition of the First Nations' situation, do you feel there's a melting and a sense of the need to cooperate now and in the future that had not existed maybe decades ago?
Mr. Nadeau: For me it is hard to speak about decades ago. What we're seeing is there are more and more communities or adjacent municipalities and First Nations that want to work together. The example is that, with such a small program, to see the number of communities that want to join and take part in that program, we have to really be selective, very careful and go through rigorous selection process of these communities. So, yes, there's a strong desire, and we're seeing more and more communities across the country.
As Mr. Breedon mentioned, our other program has been very successful, as well, and we're seeing more and more of this desire. I think it is probably the reality that the challenge regarding resources — human resources or financial resources — is bringing municipalities and adjacent First Nations to work more collaboratively together in addressing common issues that they're facing and sharing infrastructure when they can.
Senator Sibbeston: The other area I was interested in, Chief Erickson, is you mentioned that Fort St. James has paved streets and nice sidewalks, and your First Nation doesn't have that. You still have gravel roads and so forth. I suspect that's the situation for very many First Nations that live by bigger places.
I know in our own case, Yellowknife, fortunately we don't have reserves like the provinces and so there isn't that boundary, there isn't that mass distinction between where First Nations live and where non-Native people live, but I notice that over time, in Yellowknife, the area N'dilo, down in the old town where native people live, eventually the roads got paved and they have all the services and amenities that are provided in the city of Yellowknife. This has happened as a sign of progress between the people having to live together. As the court says, we're not going anywhere, so we're going to have to live with each other.
I'm wondering when your streets are going to be paved. When is Fort St. James going to come along and assist the First Nations to have paved streets? Is that somewhere in the near future, or is that a never-never sort of thing? I would be interested in hearing from the mayor about that.
Mr. MacDougall: Thank you for the question. As we move forward, I think we can discuss partnerships on various infrastructures. There are priorities. Pavement, to be quite honest with you, has not come to the fore yet, as far as our discussions go, but it is something that perhaps we can look at as far as funding applications or something in that aspect.
Right now, our highest priority is our water and sewer. Being a community of about 1,800 residents, very similar to Nak'azdli, our tax base is small and our costs are high just to operate, so, for us, it is prioritizing what we are able to do.
Senator Moore: Further to Senator Sibbeston's question, is that dividing street between the First Nation and Fort St. James paved?
Mr. Erickson: Yes, it is. It is the only pavement we have on the . . . .
Senator Moore: When did that get paved? Was it part of this deal?
Mr. MacDougall: No, it was before my time. I have been in Fort St. James since 1982. It was paved prior to that, I believe. I'm not sure.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for being here by video and in person. My first question would go to the folks from FCM.
According to a document created by Aboriginal Affairs, called Cost Drivers and Pressures: the Case for New Escalators, since 1996 there's been a 2 per cent growth cap on services provided to First Nations. Could you provide municipal spending figures on infrastructure during that period? That's 18 years that their services have been capped at 2 per cent. Would there be any way we could get that number from your research department in the FCM?
Mr. Nadeau: We could see. I don't have this information at hand, but we can certainly see if it's something that we can find and then provide to the committee.
Senator Raine: I think that would be useful to us. We are certainly aware that First Nations across this country are really having budgetary struggles, especially with regard to infrastructure, and anything that can be done to work together to share economies of scale is very important.
As I understand it, though, with these agreements, there is an additional 10 to 20 per cent of cost for infrastructure services that is not provided by Aboriginal Affairs. Is that correct, Chief Erickson?
Mr. Erickson: In relation to the special funding agreement, we were under the understanding that there could be further availability, but we haven't seen any changes to the agreement. We have celebrated the success, but the actual funding hasn't followed through.
Senator Raine: This is still a new process, obviously, and I wish you well as you move forward in it, because that's going to be a very key part. Of course, to work together, you both have to contribute your share. The money has to come from somewhere, as I'm sure you appreciate.
Mr. Erickson: Yes.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I think it's very encouraging that you are working together. Hopefully, it goes well for you.
Senator Dyck: Senator Raine pointed out quite correctly that, with the service agreements, 10 per cent has to be paid by the First Nation that is part of the agreement or partnership. My question would be: What if you had a First Nation who met all of the other requirements, but was unable to pay the 10 per cent? Would they not be allowed to be part of this type of partnership? If you had a First Nation who was really strapped for cash, would that be a factor that would disallow them from entering the CIPP program?
Mr. Nadeau: I would say no. We're not specifically looking at money. What we're looking mainly at with CIPP is a community that wants to work together and to sit down around the same table and discuss. In terms of funding, or anything else, it is really for them to find a solution. We're not telling them; we're not bringing them any solution. We are assisting them to find a solution together. We're not providing any funding or anything else.
Senator Dyck: My question was more to do with: Does Aboriginal Affairs then play a role in the approval of which projects go ahead? So, if you had a First Nation who was really unable to pay that 10 per cent, would that be a barrier that could not be overcome?
Mr. Nadeau: Not to my knowledge. In the selection or any process, it has never been an issue. It was really related to the criteria and how the communities were able or willing to really work together. That was really the main criteria.
Senator Dyck: That's good news.
Senator Moore: I want to thank the witnesses for being here. How did this Nak'azdli and Fort St. James deal get going? Who initiated? How did it get started?
Mr. MacDougall: I could probably speak to that. I have been in municipal politics this is year 16 out of the last 19, and it has been talked about around the municipal table for the last probably 12 to 15 years. It was about three years ago that Leonard Thomas, past chief of the Nak'azdli and now the economic development officer, suggested to me that maybe we should look in earnest at developing a protocol agreement. That was the opportunity for me to do a bit of research on the website and come up with three agreements that were in place at the time.
I photocopied them. I went down and met with Leonard and presented them, talked to him about it. He said that he would forward it to the chief and council. So I would say that, in earnest, it was about three years ago.
Senator Moore: CIPP has been going since 2010. In your research, did you find CIPP and who contacted them? Did one of these gentlemen here come up to see you or see the two parties? How did that get rolling? What's been their role since?
Mr. MacDougall: I can let our CAO speak to that, if he can, please.
Kevin Crook, Chief Administrative Officer, District of Fort St. James: Yes, I would be happy to. We actually received an email from the Community Infrastructure Partnership Program in June 2013. I think it was probably an email that was sent to every community that had a First Nation partnership existing of any sort. They sort of said, "If you're interested, why don't you give us a call?'' I believe the band received a similar email around the same time. Both of us independently said, "Yes, we would like to pursue enhancing our partnerships.'' It went from there. The CIPP spoke to us first, is my understanding.
Senator Moore: Mr. Breedon and Mr. Nadeau, did one of you go to these communities? Do you have field workers, or is that what you do? Do you go there and sit down and say, "We've got the positive response, now what are we looking at?'' Who does that?
Mr. Breedon: We have a capacity-building program team that has cross-cultural facilitation experience and experience in strategic planning and some background knowledge on service agreements with specific reference to water and wastewater. They facilitate a day-long workshop with two communities, and they often talk about the current state of the relationship between communities. What have been the historical events that have brought them together, where are they now, and how do they envision a common future?
In the afternoon, usually it is talking about a particular shared infrastructure and then working towards, as our communities here have talked about, signing a particular agreement. It might take a year-long process or a two-year process, and we are really third-party, neutral support.
Senator Moore: Facilitators, yes.
Mr. Breedon: Yes.
Senator Moore: Somebody on your team physically goes there and facilitates a discussion and, hopefully, an agreement?
Mr. Breedon: Yes.
Senator Moore: Further to Senator Dyck's question, if the community didn't have the 10 per cent that was needed, do you have ideas, like there are two or three sources that you could go to look at? You don't say "Do this,'' but do you recommend maybe a menu of things where you can go look to try to find the money or another way to approach it? Do you do that, or do you just say, "If you don't get the money, we're out of here?''
Mr. Breedon: We have a comprehensive tool kit, a First Nations-Municipal Community Infrastructure Partnership Program toolkit that has a section or a subsection on financing, so what financing options might be for both jurisdictions, how you pool resources.
Senator Moore: Okay.
Mr. Breedon: The comparative advantage, when one community is under the Indian Act and the other community is under the Municipal Act, is that there are options and opportunities, so we really try to promote thinking outside of the box, how you might lobby together, how you might advocate on behalf of two, three or four communities, a cluster of communities.
Senator Moore: Yes.
Mr. Breedon: We are not providing anything that is more than just advice or support.
Senator Raine: You started this program in 2010. How many marriages have you created? This is pretty exciting stuff, and you must feel very good when you see the two parties come together.
Mr. Breedon: Over the last five years, we have engaged with about 90 communities, as Mr. Nadeau has said. A number of workshops that we have held have been with a cluster of different communities that have wanted to know simply more about service agreements.
We're trying to track all of the marriages that we provide support to, but some of the communities with whom we engage might still be in the development process of signing a particular agreement. Those such as Nak'azdli First Nation and Fort St. James: what a privilege to work with those two communities that have signed an agreement over a year-long period. Certainly with a water and wastewater agreement, they're very technical and so it often takes much longer than an agreement on animal control.
The interest in these types of programs is only increasing, as the map would suggest. We have had 55 applicants and over 100 communities adjacent to each other wanting to work together. Our sister program, CEDI, in 2012, received 280 applicants. I think Canada is really at a crossroads where we're hearing from both First Nations and municipalities. As Kevin Crook has said, "we got the email; the First Nation got the email. We said, 'Why not?'''
We have recently heard "We tried to engage with our partner, but we might have had that success,'' and so on and so forth. What we are seeing is this growing recognition that we are approaching each other from an opportunity-based perspective rather than a need-based perspective and let's look at a common vision where those opportunities are more substantial, more significant and more numerous when we work together.
Senator Raine: Will you be able to eventually expand? We have only got six green dots on the map, and obviously there are 45-plus that didn't make the cut. Will they come back? Is there only a certain number you can do each year?
Mr. Breedon: We rely on the resources of external funding to bring a small team together to travel the country and help convene communities such as Nak'azdli and Fort St. James. We would be very open to increasing the size of our two program teams that we currently have: one FCM program team running the CIPP program and one program team that is a joint program team of our implementing partner in the council for the advancement of native development officers based in Edmonton and our own staff. With available resources, we very much feel that there is opportunity to engage with a greater number of communities.
The Chair: Thank you. In that connection, we know that the CIPP program, if I can call it that, is funded by Aboriginal Affairs. Is that funding on a year-to-year basis?
Mr. Nadeau: We signed an agreement. It is a two-year agreement that we signed with AANDC for this program. We are receiving contributions on a yearly basis, but it is a two-year agreement.
The Chair: Will it continue in the coming year?
Mr. Nadeau: That's something that right now that the current program is — the agreement is until March 2016. Of course, we are always in discussion with our colleagues from Aboriginal Affairs, but there is no plan right now for after 2016, so we will have to see in the coming months and year, if there's a forward phase to this program or anything else.
The Chair: I note from your presentation that you received over 50 applications in 2014. I'm wondering if the level of funding is sufficient to meet the express needs from First Nations communities and municipalities. Do you have enough money to respond to the demand or the applications?
Mr. Nadeau: We receive funding and it was established from the beginning of the program that we would want to work with six pairs of communities, so it was established right from the beginning for this specific phase of the program.
As you mentioned, we received 55 requests. Of course, we were not able to support all of the 55 communities. The program that we had developed was for six communities.
One thing that is important to mention, even if we're not able to specifically directly support every community, every lesson learned from the program, as Mr. Breedon mentioned, any agreement or any resources are made available on FCM website. It is available to any community.
Of course, if we receive a phone call or a request from some community to get some help or guidance, we will provide information, but we will not be able to work as closely with them as we do with these first six communities.
Mr. Breedon: With the funding available to us, we try to maximize the impact. Although we are only able to work with six community partners, i.e. 12 distinct communities, we also deliver regional workshops. Where we are working with community partners across Canada, we will hold a regional workshop and we will invite any First Nation and municipality to come to a one-day workshop and talk broadly about this type of approach, collaboration.
As Mr. Nadeau is saying, even though we can only work with a limited number of communities over the longer term, we really try to disseminate the lessons learned and the case studies, and we maximize the program team that we have to deliver workshops to as many communities across Canada that we can.
For example, we're now in British Columbia and we have about 20 participants at a one-day workshop from the southern British Columbia region that are coming to hear about some of the good work of our community partners.
The Chair: Has the CIPP program been evaluated?
Mr. Breedon: From our government funder? —
The Chair: Yes. It is in its fourth year. If you don't mind me asking, has there been an evaluation? I'm wondering how the program is viewed in the eyes of the funder.
Mr. Nadeau: We are working with the funder, so the funders are part of the steering committee and we are producing annual reports on the result achieved. It is being evaluated in that way.
Senator Moore: I want to understand: Is it six partnership arrangements per year, or is it six over two years? How much is your budget a year?
Mr. Nadeau: The contributions that we receive is over two years. We're talking about $750,000 over two years.
Senator Moore: Over two years?
Mr. Nadeau: Yes.
Senator Moore: Is the idea that you would try to do six partnerships in that two-year period or six per year?
Mr. Nadeau: We're working with these six —
Senator Moore: Over two years?
Mr. Nadeau: — over the two-year period for that specific phase. That was different from the previous phase, but for this one, yes.
The Chair: We are waiting for Fort St. James to rejoin us. I would like to ask another question of the FMC representatives.
We've raised, on several occasions tonight, the issue of First Nations contributing to the cost of service agreements. It has been observed that many First Nations have limited own-source revenue or tax revenue. In your experience, how do these communities pay for service fees to municipalities when they have limited own-source revenues?
Mr. Breedon: I don't know if I could provide a specific answer to that question. I know that a number of the communities we're working with under our Community Economic Development Initiative are setting up economic development corporations that provide own-source revenue. Under the Community Infrastructure Partnership Program, the rates for water and waste water provision would be from federal funds through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
The Chair: We'll probably follow up with them.
Is the other program you talked about involving the First Nations partner also funded by AANDC? Can you give us a little more information about that, please?
Mr. Breedon: The First Nations-Municipal Community Economic Development Initiative was essentially born out of the CIPP, in the sense that we saw that when First Nations and municipalities came together to talk about service agreements, they then started to talk about broader opportunities for economic development. We developed a proposal to work at joint economic development. We're working with 17 communities across Canada. At times they are pairs of communities and other times they are triad communities.
We have seen great success with this program. We're very proud of the work that we do with our implementing partner organization. What we see with this program is confidence in investing in those communities that have a common vision and a strategic plan around long-term, sustainable economic development.
We have had a number of examples where external investor interest has come in and said: "We want to invest with your communities because we see the benefits of the long-term commitment that you, as a First Nation and municipality, have in looking at joint economic development priorities over the long term.
We have a number of really interesting examples where external investors have said: "Because of your friendship accord, because of your communications protocol, and because of the work that you've done to strengthen your relationship and look at how you will tackle issues around economic development together, we feel that we would like to invest in your community.''
Senator Enverga: Swan Lake First Nation was here last December. They stated that municipal requirements and regulations for infrastructure differed from AANDC's policy for infrastructure on reserve. Based on your experience, to what extent is there inconsistency between municipal regulations and departmental policies? Are there any differences that you can think of?
Mr. Breedon: There are certainly differences. We would promote through the program based on the needs and requirements of a First Nation community and an adjacent municipality, and based on the current infrastructure that they have, i.e. pipes or built infrastructure, and the standards required for both communities. The approach is to look at those joint opportunities around how they might share services over distinct jurisdictions and boundaries.
Quite often, we find that even though the requirements might be different from those under AANDC and what the municipality might be bound to, from a technical perspective, if a water plant provides water to both the municipality and the First Nation, the standards around piping and so on will be the same because they've had to be the same.
Senator Enverga: Will these inconsistencies affect your relationship or your agreement?
Mr. Breedon: Those are issues that both parties come together to propose and find solutions for.
The Chair: On that secondary agreement, Senator Moore and I would like to know how that's funded.
Senator Moore: You said that the Community Economic Development Initiative was born out of the CIPP; and the chair was asking how it was funded. I don't know if I heard the answer.
Mr. Nadeau: It's funded through AANDC. We receive funding from AANDC.
Senator Moore: That's separate from the CIPP.
Mr. Nadeau: Yes.
Senator Moore: How much is that funding per year?
Mr. Breedon: It's approximately $500,000 per year.
Senator Moore: Is it the usual March 31 fiscal year-end?
Mr. Breedon: Yes.
Senator Moore: How long have you been receiving that money?
Mr. Breedon: This is a three-year program. The end of both CIPP and CEDI will be March 31, 2016.
Senator Moore: Is that initiative administered by the FCM? Do you have a separate office within your offices, one for CIPP and one for CEDI? How are you running that? Who handles the money and disburses it?
Mr. Nadeau: The FCM manages it. We have different resources, so we have staff working on the city program and different staff working on CIPP. These programs currently report to Mr. Breedon in terms of overall managing.
Senator Moore: Where are they located?
Mr. Nadeau: We have an office in Ottawa. On the city program, we also work with Cando, a First Nation partner located in Edmonton.
The Chair: I was asking earlier about the level of funding and the term. I got the impression that there's a two-year term for CIPP.
Mr. Breedon: The branch within AANDC with whom we're working is very impressed with the results of our city program. CEDI is in many ways treated like a pilot program, because this is the first time that we've looked at First Nation-municipal joint economic development. We have had initial positive discussions with them about a phase 2. They are very receptive to looking at it, because we have had 200 applicants interested in CEDI and we are now working with 17 communities. We would love to see that scaled up.
With the CIPP program as well, we are working in a different way, working with specific cohort communities, and I imagine over the next year and a bit we will be discussing whether we continue with the CIPP program as well.
The Chair: In response to a question from Senator Enverga earlier this evening about how the government could help, Mr. Breedon said that it would help to showcase this promising program. I hope we've done that tonight.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses tonight including, for the record, Mayor MacDougall, Hereditary Chief Erickson and Mr. Crook, for their assistance in letting us know how things are on the ground in Fort St. James, despite the challenges of distance tonight; we did lose the transmission. I know that, on behalf of the committee, we're grateful to all of you for enlightening us about this important program to our work.
With that, thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)