What We Heard
Note: The topics are deeply interconnected and as a result some of the recommendations, challenges, and opportunities may appear repetitive. This report attempts to reduce the repetition at the same time as it acknowledges that many of the ideas have multiple applications and as a result may appear more than once.
Summary The feedback regarding what governance model BC First Nations feel makes the most sense for their new housing and infrastructure authority was clear. Respondents spoke almost unanimously in favour of a strong central governing body with one leadership advisory body selected from elected and hereditary leadership, and a second advisory body made up of highly skilled technical people and service delivery hubs located in regions around the province. That being said the overriding thought was that the governing model should not be top heavy or unduly expensive. This is a BC First Nations entity that is being created as a government agency on behalf of BC First Nations ensuring the Authority is not like the topdown hierarchical structure of the Indian Act. There is consensus that there should be a separation between broad direction established by elected leadership and operational governance and management and that the organization’s bureaucracy (including governance) should be highly professional and thoroughly knowledgeable about housing and infrastructure. Words such as transparency, accountability, responsibility, fairness, decolonization, and selfdetermination reflect the overarching principles shared by all the participants. As was the idea that the Authority should abandon the top-down, one-on-one relationship currently being delivered by the federal government in favour of a lateral organization where First Nations are not competitors but collaborators building an organization that works together to benefit all. There were no opinions expressed that the Authority should have an opt-in or opt-out component, but rather that it would provide a broad range of services from which First Nations could build their own housing portfolio. The overarching idea was that the Authority was an essential part of the First Nations’ movement towards self-government in many sectors and a necessary tool to decolonize housing and infrastructure and an important step in moving beyond the Indian Act. However, there are First Nations with separate funding agreements for certain programs that will continue in their current form regardless of the Authority. In these cases a First Nation might consider to end its funding agreement and have its funds go back into the larger program pot in order to opt-in to access the Authority’s programs and services in that specific area. The focus was on decolonizing housing and infrastructure, embedding culture throughout the system and ensuring it was not like the top-down hierarchical structure of the Indian Act.
29
