The funding agreements operate under this umbrella of the FNPP, keeping in mind it's a program that was initiated pursuant to that policy in the 1990s that I referred to. In order to administer that policy, each first nation either does it in the so-called stand-alones—they're pure indigenous police services, and in Ontario there are nine—or through a shared arrangement. It could be with the OPP in Ontario, or it could be with the RCMP elsewhere in the country.
I don't mean to do a lecture—and thank you for the question, MP Blaney. I do want to emphasize the Ontario case is special. It's special because we successfully, over a period of years, negotiated amendments to the Police Services Act that are about to come into force in January. They permit the exercise of a legislative option by first nations to become a legislated police service in Ontario. This is very important because it does away with the discussions about “being an essential service”, and all that stuff. In Ontario, a first nation can apply and, if constituted, can actually become just like other police services, so that's important.
Getting back to MP Blaney's question, really it's been consistent with all other vestiges of colonialism, which is, whereas for the rest of Canada, health is legislatively protected, whereas for the rest of Canada, education is legislatively protected, when it comes to first nations, when it comes to indigenous people across the country, of course, these are all done by programs. Policing was no exception. The history has been that they show up with a cheque to indigenous people, and they say, “This is your allotment under the funding agreement for this round.” That was historically called a negotiation. It was nonsense. They simply said, “This is what's there. Take it or leave it.”
So, indigenous services struggled along.
Along came, frankly, Grand Chief Yesno and then Grand Chief Fiddler of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, along with Chief Terry Armstrong, the predecessor to Roland Morrison, and then Chief Morrison. They said to Ontario and Canada, “Do you know what? If you don't, one, give us a process for creating a legislated service”—and that's that option I talked about—“and, two, sign these terms of reference that will actually determine how we negotiate in good faith, we're not doing it anymore. We're going to give you back the vehicle that has no brakes and you drive it.”
Because of what Chief Morrison does, which is police so many remote communities, no surprise, they ran the numbers and found out it would cost them a zillion dollars to police these communities. So, all of a sudden, NAN and NAPS enjoyed a leverage, and used it in the negotiations. Now, funding agreement negotiations for NAPS, I'm told, and I've been a negotiator for them—with them—for two or three rounds now, look different than they used to.
What I need to communicate to everybody is that that is not the case for the smaller services. That is not the case for the smaller indigenous communities. They remain complete hostages to this totally “keep first nations down” approach. I'm sorry to sound shrill, but it is important to appreciate that the people who suffer more today are...these services that don't have the leverage. They continue to believe they're not allowed to have legal advice. They continue to engage in this tripartite process, which is not a negotiation. It's, “Here's your cheque and this is what you get,” and they leave.
I hope that answers your question.