Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 9 - Evidence - November 19, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:50 p.m. to study 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 or via CPAC or the web.
I am Dennis Patterson, from Nunavut, and 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 are now focusing our study on infrastructure.
Today I'm pleased we will hear from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation on this important topic. Nishnawbe Aski is one of four Aboriginal organizations in Toronto. It has a membership of 49 Northern Ontario First Nations with a combined population of approximately 45,000.
Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston, Northwest Territories.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Greene Raine: Nancy Raine from B.C.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
The Chair: Members, please welcome our witness tonight, from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Charmaine McCraw, Ecomonic and Resource Development Unit Manager. You will recall Ms. McCraw provided helpful testimony to us when she appeared before us at public hearings in Thunder Bay as part of our study into on-reserve housing. It is nice to see you again, and welcome back, Ms. McCraw. We look forward to your presentation, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed.
Charmaine McCraw, Ecomonic and Resource Development Unit Manager, Nishnawbe Aski First Nation: Thank you, everybody. It is good to see some familiar faces. It is good to be here.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to again address the committee and provide an overview of infrastructure challenges that we have identified at the Nishnawbe Aski Nation PTO level. As you are aware from our last presentation in September, NAN chiefs have collectively declared a housing state of emergency. In order to address that housing state of emergency, there needs to be some significant investment into infrastructure or the crisis is going to continue.
I wanted to note that my Deputy Grand Chief Les Louttit wanted to be here tonight but, unfortunately, due to health reasons, he was not able to appear with me.
Although there are many contributing factors as to why there's insufficient infrastructure in NAN territory — and when I say "NAN" I refer to Nishnawbe Aski Nation — I was a little bit surprised to hear that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has been reallocating funds for community infrastructure into social and education programs. While I understand that social and education programs are important to individuals within our nation, I'm not sure that that is the actual solution. We have to remember that many of our social and educational challenges would be deterred if we could address and remediate the issues of unhealthy homes within our nation. When I say "unhealthy," that's exactly what I mean.
For a country that is supposed to be rich in fresh water, Canada has some disappointing statistics. In 2008, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported more than 1,760 boil water advisories across the country. By July, according to Health Canada, 97 of these water advisories were First Nations in Canada, and 21 of those 97 are within Nishnawbe Aski Nation territory. Boil water advisories are often due to faulty chlorination or disinfection systems and are meant to be only temporary measures. However, many of our First Nations have been affected by them for a long time — some, like Neskantaga First Nation, for over 13 years.
In March 2006, the federal government put into effect a plan to help improve Aboriginal water quality. A plan of action for drinking water in First Nations communities was developed to address concerns highlighted by the Walkerton crisis in 2000, and as well as the 2005 Kashechewan First Nation evacuation because of E. coli contamination in their water.
We have to look at a way to address these infrastructure burdens within my Nishnawbe Aski Nation. I'm not here to provide all the answers but to advocate that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada should be dealing with their lateral partner in government, that being Nishnawbe Aski Nation as a PTO. We have to be able to take control of the situations that present themselves and find proactive instead of reactive solutions.
Currently, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada allocates funding to individual communities, and it has its own internal 10-year capital plan. NAN, at the PTO level, is not privy to that information. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has the whole country to worry about. And what I am suggesting is that money be allocated to a regional infrastructure authority that would plan, administer and prioritize projects within our region. This would allow for a more focused approach to dealing with issues within our territory.
Eight NAN communities have been on boil water advisories for over 10 years, and that's according to Health Canada, which has been well aware of the situation for that amount of time. Lack of funding for infrastructure to bring drinking water up to federal standards in these communities is the major issue.
The Thunder Bay chapter of the Council of Canadians also expressed concerns in an article released by CBC in September about what the government calls the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. They say: "The federal legislation is deemed a vital step towards ensuring First Nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water as other Canadians." However, there are many fears that the new legislation will force First Nations to meet provincial water standards without providing funding or capacity development training to actually meet those standards.
We have identified some challenges as we try to move forward. Recent cuts to tribal councils intended to realign tribal council mandates, according to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada governance department, has left our tribal councils at a low level of capacity to be able to respond to their communities: backlog to fill requests for service; inability to properly cover their catchment area; lack of funding for maintenance and training; hiring of outside companies to oversee the plants; estimated need from now till 2029, using Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada growth projections, is at a devastating number of $3.3 billion, and that was according to a recent study conducted by Ontario First Nations Technical Service; and simply a lack of a cohesive approach between First Nation governments and Canadian governments to remediate these issues.
I believe you all have this chart in front of you. You will find what is needed for this year alone to address the infrastructure and communities, separated by tribal council. This is to bring communities up to a standard that is acceptable as Canadian society. This chart leaves out housing, so it is focused solely on infrastructure. Again, that figure is $1.1 billion.
We begin to ask ourselves the question, and we battle this question every day with the work we do, how can we address those infrastructure gaps? Once again, as I recommended in September, I urge government to think of a new way of administering funding. We often hear that NAN should be coming to government with a united voice, yet government continues to approach communities on an individual basis and deals with them on an individual basis. This is causing a "divide and conquer" attitude, if you will, within our nation and damages our ability to nation build and become a sovereign nation.
NAN has been working with Confederation College, Lakehead University, through means of MOUs to do research on renewable energies, housing and infrastructure and water. With the new technologies and abundance of renewable energies in our country, we are hoping to lead our communities in becoming self-sufficient.
Although electrification via the traditional water power projects is looking like it's going to happen, we still need to realize the fact that the people living in Nishnawbe Aski Nation territory have to be able to pay those electricity bills, if that's the route they decide to go. Renewable energy is something we're investigating because it will help to alleviate those costs and will also utilize some of the resources available right in the communities to heat and electrify their communities.
Recently the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has released an electrification readiness program to help communities prepare to be connected to the grid. They did so with a timeline of submission for about 21 days. Once again, by not taking a united approach and consulting with Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the PTO, our communities will be bombarded with consultants looking to give them a plan. By not allowing NAN to coordinate this planning, they will end up with individual plans instead of one cohesive, united plan for our nation.
In my last presentation to the Senate, I recommended the CFISH model where capacity development, economic development and investment all come together in one entity. Simply putting more money into existing programs and services is not the solution to addressing the infrastructure challenges on reserve. We need the structural reform and innovation required to remediate these issues.
By dealing with root causes and structural issues, and by implementing strong accountability and governance structures, concrete improvements and outcomes can be achieved. However, we need the cooperation of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I have approached AANDC and other players and they see the benefit in NAN or an entity at arm's length from the political territorial organization to be able to manage and administer infrastructure dollars more efficiently that will lead to a more regional, prioritized approach to remediating gaps and lack of infrastructure.
I have also been, in recent days, in conversations with Canada P3 and other experienced partners, who see a very viable possibility of moving forward with remediating the boil-water advisories, at least the 21 within my nation, using a P3 agreement. For this we need to get commitment from AANDC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, for major capital dollars to help secure the financing. We will also need to work with communities to help them understand why working on a nationwide level will benefit them and their future generations.
The Atlantic Policy Congress is going through a very similar process with 33 communities, as they see the need to find a way to address, deal and solve the water issues in their respective territories. Nishnawbe Aski Nation, myself and my team in the economic and resource development unit have been in contact with John Paul and we will work with APC to ensure that the best of the best ideas and structured agreements come to fruition.
I have spoken a lot about the water issues in our territory because water is very sacred to Aboriginal people and it's very close to women who are the keepers of water. Although this is not the only infrastructure issue, it is a major one that has many social and health impacts on our members.
I would like to note right now that development is currently being driven by resource extraction. I have a question: Why is the extraction of resources driving development? Should it not be the fact that there are Canadians living in deplorable conditions? As one of the richest countries in the world, it is almost shameful for the Government of Canada to let this happen and let it continue to happen.
There are so many committees on water and on infrastructure, but many of these committees are not action oriented. There are a lot of people coming together, stating the problems and not creating any actions. I urge the committees that are usually initiated by government to become more action-based, action-oriented, and not spend money to just travel and meet to update each other.
I'm going to leave you with the recommendations that I left you with in September. I recommend that you urge government to look at a new way of administering dollars and to evaluate current structures that are in place and their efficiencies and recommend the CFISH model to government. I want to make a note about that. So many of our issues become tied to politics and this causes a lot of hindrance to development. Using a CFISH model which is not attached to politics would help to alleviate some of those issues.
Urge government to allocate funding to communities or to a body with immediate need to bring their water systems up to standards with long-term financial commitments. Working on a year-by-year financial commitment leaves communities feeling as if they're not sure if it's ever going to happen.
Urge government to recognize that capacity development at the local level is needed before we will see sustainable change. Recommend to government that CFISH — and I should clarify that — creating futures for infrastructure and sustainable homes, be a delivery agent for development, housing programs, trades training and certification and be the go-to for coordination for planning for infrastructure development.
Once again, recommend to government the need for funding for comprehensive community planning to help communities strategically guide their development.
I thank you at this time for the opportunity to speak about the high-level issues that NAN has identified and I look forward to your questions. I may not be able to fully answer your questions, but I will definitely be able to bring those questions to my leadership and get back to you if I am unable to answer them.
On behalf of myself and my deputy grand chief, Les Louttit, I say meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation. I would like to ask you about the regional infrastructure authority model and the CFISH approach that you are recommending.
You didn't mention or take credit, and I think maybe you should have, for the northwestern Ontario broadband expansion initiative in 2010 where, under the leadership of NAN, you put together an investment to bring fiber-optic network and enhanced broadband services to 26 remote First Nations communities in northern Ontario.
I would like you to tell us a bit about that, if you would. Specifically, was that project — and I know it used P3 funding — an example of this regional authority approach that you are recommending tonight?
Ms. McCraw: It is an example of that. When you have one central agency, like Nishnawbe Aski Nation, and the capacity and resources that we are able to access, it helps to coordinate communities among themselves. A lot of the time they can't cooperate, but they can cooperate with NAN. They may not be able to cooperate with each other but they all belong to Nishnawbe Aski Nation.
Yes, the broadband project is a great example of how working with one central authority helps to implement projects going forward.
The Chair: You told us in Thunder Bay that you had had some receptivity to this idea from Aboriginal Affairs officials. Could you elaborate on that a bit? Who have you been speaking with?
Also, the recent electrification readiness program that you mentioned issued without too much notice and you were concerned that it was going to be to individual communities rather than to a regional approach, as I understood your remarks. Was that initiative from the regional department of AANDC or from the central headquarters? I'm sorry, I asked you several questions.
Ms. McCraw: That's okay. Back to your first question, I've been speaking with Sheila Silva, who is I believe the RDG for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, as well as Joan Broussard, who is just under her. They see the need for NAN to approach government as a united voice, and it becomes frustrating because they go to communities and approach communities on an individual level.
Two weeks ago I had a meeting again with Joan Broussard and Sheila Silva, and they were both excited because they are looking at trying to alleviate some of their costs and be more efficient. When I first introduced them to the idea of CFISH, it only really captured housing.
Now that we're looking at the other aspects that are tied into economic development in some fashion, they're willing to look at new ways of doing things. No commitments, of course — that doesn't really surprise me — but they are open to it.
One of the biggest things, and they're supporting us with this, is communicating to our communities the benefits of working together instead of working individually. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has decided to support us financially to devise a communication strategy so we can properly communicate those ideas.
Oftentimes communication gets jumbled, people understand it in different ways, and definitions of things have different meanings to different people. We at NAN will try to articulate a communications strategy when we're talking about housing, infrastructure, moving forward and how working together will help with nation-building.
Speaking of the electrification readiness and the individualistic approach, that program was announced by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which is a provincial ministry. Again, they released the program on October 27 and the deadline for applications was last Friday. They didn't consult with NAN when developing the program. I met with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs this morning and raised the issues that I'm raising today. If you want things done efficiently, you have to have that coordination at that higher level.
The Electrification Readiness Program is only for Nishnawbe Aski Nation communities. There is no other body involved. There is no other treaty or PTO involved. We have seen it as, well, why would you not involve the political territorial organization that contains all of these communities so we could have a united plan for electrification readiness?
They were surprised at the work we have been doing with Confederation College. Again, that goes back to our communication strategy with government, as well as with our communities, and that's something that we're going to start working on. I have my first meeting tomorrow morning.
That individualistic approach has to stop. If government wants to see efficiencies, if they want to see economies of scale, they have to stop approaching individual communities and dangling carrots in front of them. Our communities are poor. When you say, oh, well, we could give you $50,000, $100,000, they want to go after that, but is it for the right reasons? Is it going to get you the plan that you require to move forward? I don't know. Probably not.
There's a reason that we're in the situation that we're in. Government needs to understand. It only makes sense, especially on a federal level. You should be working laterally and that is working with your other government, which is NAN. I know we're not self-governing, but it would only make sense that they would at least ask for input or help in coordinating programs that are being put out into our communities.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentation this evening. I was trying to figure out in my head the organization, and you're trying to streamline things in talking about creating a body for the department to work with, and I'm wondering how that body relates to NAN itself, versus the tribal council. You were talking about tribal councils, individual First Nations and NAN. The tribal councils come in between?
Ms. McCraw: There are three levels of government that were initiated by federal government. We have our First Nations, our individual bands. We have our tribal councils. I deal with seven different tribal councils, which is provincial. Then we have the NAN, which, to me, would be the federal aspect.
Senator Dyck: You mentioned there have been some changes to funding to tribal councils which has interfered with the way the tribal councils are functioning.
Ms. McCraw: Correct. For example, Mushkegowuk Tribal Council was cut by $900,000 from $1.2 million. They're now operating on $300,000.
Senator Dyck: How do the tribal councils operate in terms of coming up with plans to do with waste water or drinking water with respect to NAN? Do they report to NAN?
Ms. McCraw: No, right now they don't. It's a situation where I don't really think everybody understands the roles and responsibilities of our levels of government, and that is something that I have identified with Aboriginal Affairs, with our tribal councils, and with my executive council as well.
Senator Moore: You mentioned that funding went from 1.2 down to 300. What happened there? Why did that happen?
Ms. McCraw: I asked that question when I had a meeting a few months ago with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, CMHC and various departments within Aboriginal Affairs, including governance; so I asked the governance gentleman, Ron Mavin, what was the purpose of that, why did you do that? He said, well, it was a program change and it was meant to refocus them. I asked him if they had explained that to the tribal councils because all they got was a letter saying their funding was cut. They didn't give any rationale. The reason why? I'm not sure. They've never really given a reason.
The only reason I was given was to refocus and realign tribal councils and their mandates. That was the answer I was given by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
Senator Moore: The money that was taken out, where did it go? You say it was realigned, refocused. Where did it go within the First Nations that were supposed to get it?
Ms. McCraw: There is no answer to that, or we haven't been provided with an answer.
Senator Moore: Was it ever issued? Were the funds issued somewhere or do you not know that? Have they told you they were reissued to another use or purpose?
Ms. McCraw: They haven't said where it has been reallocated to.
Senator Enverga: I'm surprised in a way. When we go for a trip we always say that one program doesn't fit all. You actually want us to talk only to NAN, the leadership there, right, which is good. That will help in a way to centralize everything.
I'm sorry, I didn't go to your First Nation. What's the population of the whole NAN group?
Ms. McCraw: NAN territory is 45,000 people, 49 individual communities.
Senator Enverga: How big is that?
Ms. McCraw: It's approximately two thirds of the province of Ontario.
Senator Enverga: It's big. The reason I'm asking is the tribal council total is about $1.1 billion, and I'm trying to figure out. With those 45,000 people, how many live in the First Nation? Do they all live there?
Ms. McCraw: They all live in First Nation communities.
Senator Enverga: Except they are all separated.
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
Senator Enverga: Why would the government try to deal with one community up there? Are they all the same in topography and do they have the same basic needs?
Ms. McCraw: I wouldn't say they have identical needs. We all have the basic need of clean water, electricity and roads, just like the rest of Canadians. Each individual community has its strengths and weaknesses. As NAN, we're able to identify that. We know our communities; we visit our communities. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada have a lot of First Nations to worry about. There is no way for them to understand the complexities or the unique situations of, let's say, northern remote Manitoba, northern remote Quebec and Ontario.
Senator Enverga: From your statistics, this is what you need, and to make things better, how much would you need? Will you be happy with the same amount, $1.1 billion?
Ms. McCraw: $1.1 billion would bring our current infrastructure up to standard, and then that number forecasts about approximately five years of growth into the future, using Aboriginal Affairs' growth projections.
Senator Enverga: At this time, how much do you think you're receiving, the whole NAN group?
Ms. McCraw: That's a good question. NAN is not privy to that information.
Senator Enverga: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. It's nice to see you again.
If you don't mind, I want to follow along trying to understand NAN, because it's an unusual organization from other areas, I think. I want to plumb a little bit and make sure I understand.
Could you tell me who funds NAN? Does it come directly from AANDC or is NAN and the operations you provide funded up from your member First Nations?
Ms. McCraw: No, it's multiple resources, so Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; FedNor does a large part of our program, like when we're doing program delivery; NOHFC, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Again, we've been cut in funding too. Hence the CFISH model of using our own economic powers to then try to work towards not depending so much on that government.
Just to add to that, when government allows mining companies to approach individual communities instead of the top of the nation, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, we could be negotiating resource revenue sharing that would benefit our whole territory and begin to fund our whole, but no, that's not the situation. Currently government is allowing the mining companies to approach individual tribal councils, individual communities, so there are some issues there.
Senator Tannas: Do you actually provide cash transfers through your organization into any of the member communities?
Ms. McCraw: No, we don't.
Senator Tannas: Your situation is that your funding comes from somewhere other than your members and you don't provide any cash to your members, so that would probably explain a bit of the problem you've got in being ignored by some members or, as you say, being played off by others in that you really aren't connected in any necessary way with the First Nations. I would submit to you, for some day, that's a problem you should try to fix. I understand that what you're saying is, fund all First Nations or fund significant chunks of their programs through NAN and then they'll get involved and get very interested in what you're doing.
Ms. McCraw: I think it would definitely encourage a united approach instead of the individualistic approach we're seeing now.
Senator Tannas: Nothing focuses the mind like money, right? Thank you for that.
I was there and did the tour. We went to places like Sandy Lake. Would they be part of your organization?
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
Senator Tannas: We also went to Pic River.
Ms. McCraw: No. Pic River is actually my original First Nation, but they belong to Robinson-Superior Treaty group. That's not Nishnawbe Aski Nation.
Senator Tannas: Would the Nishnawbe nation have pretty much a common experience when it comes to some of the key drivers like employment, the paying of rent, own-source revenue from external sources? Would most of your communities be in the same boat, do you think? Again, going back to the one-size-fits-all situation? The reason I asked about Pic River, we went there and saw how advanced they are, by virtue of being on the Trans-Canada Highway and near a mine and a bunch of other reasons. Would your representative communities all be roughly in the same kind of economic state, do you think?
Ms. McCraw: With the exception of a few that have road access and that are close to mineral developments, yes.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, that's helpful.
Senator Sibbeston: I notice that your organization is primarily focused as an advocate for education and governance and things of that sort. Would you say most of your work in representing the First Nations is to do with the federal and provincial governments? How much influence or how much do you do in the area of economic development, dealing with resource companies and so forth?
Ms. McCraw: Yes, we are a political advocacy organization. That is our first and foremost mandate. Yes, we do a lot of work with the Ontario government as well as the Canadian government.
The answer to the second part of that question is economic development. Right now, because of rules in place, we don't have to be consulted by mining companies. They can go into communities. The government deemed that Matawa tribal council, which is one out of seven in my territory, was the only one that was going to be affected by the Ring of Fire mineral development when in actual fact it's going to affect the whole territory. It's going to affect the whole province.
When government forces don't deal with the level of NAN, then, again, it's divide and conquer. Oh, so Mattawa is the only tribal council that will benefit from billions of dollars of resources that are going to come out of our earth? That's not right, but that's the choice the government has made.
Senator Sibbeston: One of the impressions I had from the Senate committee's travel into northern Ontario this fall is that, in a place like Sandy Lake, which is remote — and it doesn't seem like there's much economic development in that area — little attention is paid to a community lake Sandy Lake by government. It just seems they're way out there on their own, and nobody seems to care. You get the impression: Who cares?
Is there anything that your organization does to help their situation, to improve things like housing? You get the impression that they're really trying their best with the resources that they have. But then there are just so many problems and there's just no rapport or relationship, it seems, with the federal government.
I found that to be most unusual because I come from the Northwest Territories, and it is not like that. Every community has an MLA. The MP goes there often. Government is in a nearby area. There's much more communication and there are many more relationships between communities and government, but I found that, in the communities where we were, they're just so remote and seem so far removed from getting any consistent and thought- out assistance at all.
Do you want to comment on that?
Ms. McCraw: Yes, we do reach out to our communities. For example, last Monday, I was in Pikangikum. They're being approached by some investors, some mining companies. There are minerals on their reserve land. They needed legal advice before proceeding, so I continue to bring NAN's lawyer up with me to help to answer some of the questions on mineral rights.
When you say there's not much going on in economic development in Pikangikum, you are mistaken. They're actually the only community in Canada to have been able to obtain a sustainable forest licence. That's never been done by any First Nation in our country. It took them 19 years to get it.
They now have a business plan to move forward. They have 600,000 cubic metres of wood that they can harvest every year, but there is no cooperation from government to actually make their proposal come to life. After finding out about that situation, I am meeting with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to discuss their project proposal and bring it forward. So that is kind of how we're acting on behalf of them right now in Sandy Lake.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. It is good to see you again. I have a question, and I hope you can help me with it. Because you have the First Nations communities, 49 communities, is it seven tribal councils?
Ms. McCraw: Seven tribal councils. Some of the larger First Nations are independent, so they don't belong to any tribal council.
Senator Raine: You have 10 different senior levels, if you like.
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
Senator Raine: And then NAN. If the government was to give NAN the budget for infrastructure or housing development, whatever, how would NAN set priorities?
I know you are a lot closer to the people than Ottawa is, but there is probably not going to be enough money to go around and make everybody happy. How would NAN set priorities so that it would work?
Ms. McCraw: It would be through constant consultation with our communities or with our tribal councils. We would work through that level. The tribal councils have an even closer relationship with their communities, so we would work as a coordinated effort. Right now, the communities are not privy to a lot of the internal plans of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. They may say, "Oh, yes, you fall in year five." I think that, if it's a lot more transparent and open and they see the benefits and the monies that we can leverage with those chunks of money to actually get more done for the dollar, they would be a lot more receptive to that. But it would be through consultation of course.
Senator Raine: Consultation is great, if you are giving them the money, but, if you are saying, "You have to wait 10 years; we're giving it to nine other people first," it can fall apart.
Ms. McCraw: Valid point.
Senator Raine: It gets back to when you are planning for an area that is as vast as more than half of Ontario, it is pretty daunting to look at how you would go about trying to actually get it all done. The allure, if you like, of the private-public partnerships and negotiating a little harder, maybe, with resource development companies is there. Do you feel it is realistic to go and do it that way?
Ms. McCraw: I do, with the P3s it is a definite possibility. I'm not saying it is a way to fix everything, but I'm worried about my communities that can't drink their water or bathe in it or brush their teeth with it. The rest of the nation, the rest of the First Nations across Canada, will agree with that, right? Generally, most Canadians would agree with that.
However, there will always be somebody who is unhappy. Again, if we were to make it a more transparent process, not so secretive and not so individualistic, those communities would be a lot more receptive to understanding that, "Okay, Neskantaga needs this this year; they absolutely need it. They have been on boiled water for 13 years." Finally, there was the groundbreaking ceremony for the school in Pikangikum. They haven't had a school in years. We did all come together at one point before all this happened, right? Before we actually became Canada.
So there will always be those clan issues. There will always be that type of thing, but, again, they're understanding people. If we communicate our ideas correctly to them so that they understand and everybody understands the definitions of different terms, it would work a lot better.
Senator Raine: I'm sorry for taking a little bit too much time here, but I'm just thinking: If NAN was in the driver's seat, would you have spent the $81 million on fiber optics, or would you have done some water systems? Is that how you're going to look at it?
Ms. McCraw: We would definitely prioritize. It is nice to have high speed, but I would probably prefer water or a house that I could live in with one family instead of four.
There is definitely prioritizing that needs to be done, and all of our chiefs come together. Our 49 chiefs come together at least twice a year. There are ways to do priority planning, like project planning, regional planning. It is like a big family. We all have our differences, just like in our families, but there is that unity there. It is just that, when government comes and says, "Oh, well, we can give you this much," it just becomes fighting, and it is dividing and conquering instead of nation building.
Senator Raine: Thank you. Yes, I understand.
Senator Moore: Thank you for coming to see us again.
You mentioned Sandy Lake in response to Senator Sibbeston. Is NAN involved in the Ring of Fire development in negotiation?
Ms. McCraw: No. The Government of Ontario has opened it up to Mushkegowuk as well because they were getting divided opinions from Matawa communities. We don't have a say in resource revenue sharing. We don't sign those agreements. They have deemed that only one tribal council is going to benefit from that.
Senator Moore: Are any of the seven tribal councils within NAN in the Ring of Fire?
Ms. McCraw: Yes, Matawa Tribal Council. That's where the concentration of minerals is. And the concentration is trying to reach into Mushkegowuk territory, not so much the actual resource extraction, but the effects of that resource extraction because Mushkegowuk is on the James Bay-Hudson Bay coast, and the water runs that way, so it is contamination.
Senator Moore: There are environmental issues.
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
Senator Moore: Can I ask you to look at the chart that's on the bottom of page 3 of your brief?
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
Senator Moore: What are the first two, Ms. McCraw, "Independent" and "Independent First Nations"?
Ms. McCraw: The Independent First Nations Alliance is a tribal council. That is what they're actually called. The Independent is the larger First Nations that don't belong to a tribal council.
Senator Moore: How many First Nations would be in that first category?
Ms. McCraw: I believe there are six independent.
Senator Moore: Six. And the number two, that's just one First Nation, is it?
Ms. McCraw: No.
Senator Moore: How many are in that?
Ms. McCraw: I'm not sure of the exact numbers.
Senator Moore: The first two columns, "Water & Wastewater Future Servicing," and "Water and Wastewater Total" future servicing, is there any overlap or duplication in the future servicing portions of those figures?
Ms. McCraw: No. When we talk about water and wastewater future servicing, the first column, it is from antigrowth projections on what will be needed for new. The "Protocol Upgrades & Future Servicing" are upgrades to plants.
Senator Moore: To existing?
Ms. McCraw: Existing, and the same kind of projections based on the growth projections from AANDC.
Senator Moore: Did NAN make up this table?
Ms. McCraw: Well, yes, we conducted a study that was done by Neegan Burnside. It's called the Neegan Burnside Report.
Senator Moore: When was this done? How current are these figures?
Ms. McCraw: They are fairly current, 2011.
Senator Moore: The numbers are daunting, as somebody else said.
The Chair: Could you give us some idea of the remoteness of the 49 communities? We were privileged to visit some fly-in communities with winter roads. Would you be able to give us an idea of how many of the 49 First Nations are off-road?
Ms. McCraw: Thirty-seven.
The Chair: Thirty-seven are winter road?
Ms. McCraw: Remote.
The Chair: The challenges we heard about remoteness relating to housing would apply equally to infrastructure?
Ms. McCraw: Yes, definitely.
The Chair: One of your recommendations is urging government to look at a new way of administering dollars and evaluating current structures. You have made it clear that a more unified approach is what is recommended. Can you comment about some ideas you have about the new way of administering dollars, please?
Ms. McCraw: I'm meaning that instead of giving individual communities money, have that money flow through the one central agency, whether it be CFISH or something separated from the political. Again, as I said, that hinders a lot of development, so some type of entity, and I am calling it CFISH.
The Chair: We did hear at our last meeting from some representatives of the AFN that another problem is the short- term nature of funding, that if there could be a commitment for longer terms, it would facilitate financing or more innovative forms of financing. Do you have a comment about that?
Ms. McCraw: I would very much agree that long-term commitments are needed. I understand that government is restricted in some ways, but if Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada wants to be in the same position 10 years from now, they can keep doing the things that they're doing right now. But if they want to see change, they need to commit. Aboriginal affairs will never go away. Despite what government comes in, they're always going to be there, so I think those longer term commitments would allow us to do a lot more. Even at my level, I work with developing capacity in communities at the community level, like economic development officers but, year by year, I have to put in those applications to get that money to train those people. Whereas if I had five years of funding, I could train each individual 49 economic development officers and we would have fully practicing EDOs in our communities, but I can only do seven or eight at a time, and that becomes a pain.
Senator Raine: Daunting.
The Chair: I was struck by the fact that you described a provincial initiative and it didn't quite pick up on that. It was the provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the electrification project you described.
When you talk about the government collaborating with you to deliver on a regional basis, you have had talks with AANDC. I know that's what you did with the broadband expansion; you had the province, the feds and even a private sector partner. Does your vision include having provincial Aboriginal ministry infrastructure money involved as well, and have you talked to the provincial ministry about this concept?
Ms. McCraw: Yes, I know Nishnawbe Aski Nation has approached the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the provincial government, many times, asking: Where are you? Where are you at the table? To be completely honest, since I have come on with NAN, it has been very difficult to even speak to an ADM or a DM from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Their program people are consistently changing. I have had to submit financial reports three times now in the last seven months — the same report — because they have changed project officers. As much as First Nation government can be difficult to deal with, so can other levels.
The Chair: That's the province you are talking about?
Ms. McCraw: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Moore is the last person I have on my list.
Senator Moore: As a follow-up to the chair's question, you had to resubmit the same application a number of times. Why would you have to do that? The file is there in the office. Why would you have to keep resubmitting? I don't understand that.
Ms. McCraw: The financial reports to the ministry of Aboriginal Affairs?
Senator Moore: You said you had to submit it so many times because they changed officers. Still the file is there no matter who is sitting behind the desk. Why do you have to resubmit it?
Ms. McCraw: Because it is requested of me. I'm not sure why I had to resubmit.
Senator Moore: That's just a waste of energy and time.
Ms. McCraw: I totally agree.
Senator Moore: NAN has been in existence since 1973, and it is the Northern Ontario First Nations. Have you thought about expanding it to take in the whole province or a larger piece of the province? I am assuming that NAN has been deemed to be a success by the member First Nations. If it's a successful model, have you thought about expanding it to give it more clout, to give it that one-unit voice to deal with government, your lateral partner? Has that ever been discussed?
Ms. McCraw: I don't know if that would be possible. There's quite a division. We have Algonquin in this territory, Ojibwe, and the Robinson Superior treaty group, and then Cree and Ojicree. I'm not sure of the willingness of that to happen. I know we have some Treaty 3 in the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. It was originally established as Grand Council Treaty 9, so that's why it took the territory that it did.
Senator Moore: I thought it might be advantageous. That's all.
Ms. McCraw: It could be. That's something that would have to be looked at.
Senator Moore: There must be a commonality of interest regardless of the tribes and cultures. There must be some things there that it would be better to be united on in approaching whomever. Anyway, it was just a thought.
Ms. McCraw: I agree. I want to reinforce that communities in non-remote northern Ontario have very different situations than remote communities.
Senator Moore: I appreciate that. Thank you.
The Chair: Not seeing any more questioners, I would like to thank you very much, Ms. McCraw, for again assisting our committee with another aspect of our study. You are the first regional organization witness from whom we have heard. I was very interested to hear you are working with the Atlantic Policy Congress, because we're going to be hearing from them again. It is interesting that, in another region of the country, there's a similar move towards a regional approach with infrastructure financing and construction. This has been very stimulating. Thank you again.
With that, colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)