Ensuring Aboriginal Involvement in Canada's National Digital Strategy

Summary

Research demonstrates links between broadband infrastructure and community development, particularly in Aboriginal communities (O'Donnell et al, 2010a and 2010b; Benkler, 2010). However, national broadband development policy in Canada presently subsumes Aboriginal policies and practices under the general rubric of 'rural and remote' development (Industry Canada, 2009). This generalization, which is further reflected in institutional structures and administrative practices, obscures the unique conditions of Aboriginal communities, impeding their ability to become substantively involved in broadband development policy.

As was clearly demonstrated in the development of Aboriginal broadcasting in Canada (Roth, 2005), and in the development of Aboriginal broadband infrastructure in the U.S. (FCC, 2007; Native Public Media, 2010) attempts to develop an inclusive, "world–class" digital infrastructure in Canada must involve these communities. To reach this goal, substantive, community–based participatory development processes, formal recognition of the government–to–government relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada with regards to communications infrastructure development, and supportive institutional processes must be included in Canada's National Digital Strategy. Aboriginal communities, many of whom are already engaged in building, administrating and maintaining local and regional community–based broadband networks, can and should be involved in any nationally–focused development policy (see for example Fiser et al, 2005 and J. Whiteduck, 2009). This level of involvement was formally recognized years ago in the U.S. (FCC, 2000) and demonstrated in that country's National Broadband Plan (FCC, 2010).

This proposed approach offers several benefits to Canada, which are summarized below:

1. The National Digital Strategy is an opportunity to address a widely acknowledged 'digital divide' in Canada's Aboriginal communities. Targeted policies that increase Aboriginal–focused broadband infrastructure, governance and administration might help address this growing discrepancy in access to digital infrastructure.
2. There is a need to articulate a more coordinated national broadband infrastructure development policy for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Policy in this area has historically suffered from an overly–centralized, short–term, 'siloed' approach (O'Donnell et al, 2010a). One solution is to incorporate community–based solutions and local participation.
3. Communications infrastructure development shares a long history with the political and economic sovereignty of the Canadian state (Babe, 1990). Communications infrastructure has enabled Aboriginal communities to develop a national (and now, international) broadcasting system (Roth, 2005). Broadband development can play a similar role in connecting and empowering local communities while benefitting the nation as a whole.
4. The Canadian government has publicly demonstrated its support in forging a 'new relationship' with Aboriginal populations through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its (qualified) support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples. A broadband infrastructure development policy that substantively involves Aboriginal communities can support this commitment.
5. Research documents many already–existing examples of successful community–based broadband development projects in Aboriginal communities. For example, the First Nations SchoolNet program demonstrates how community–based broadband infrastructure and administration can assist with educational initiatives (Potter, 2009 and Walmark, 2009; see also INAC 2009). A National Digital Strategy is an opportunity to both build on these 'best practices' and to showcase 'made–in–Canada' solutions to the world.

Submission

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission to the consultation process leading to the development of Canada's National Digital Strategy. My submission links to the second discussion theme, Building a World–Class Digital Infrastructure, and focuses on one of the questions raised:

How best can we ensure that rural and remote communities are not left behind in terms of access to advanced networks and what are the priority areas for attention in these regions?

This question asks how Canada might set goals for the development of next generation (broadband) networks. Highlighting the need for Canadian businesses, institutions and individuals to develop the capacity to adopt and apply digital technologies with confidence, the consultation paper also notes that "policies and programs must be adjusted, where appropriate, to maximize Canadian success in the digital economy" (Industry Canada, 2010c: 9). Among the capacities highlighted is the ability of Canadians to use digital technologies to obtain public services, participate in online interactions, create jobs, and foster community growth.

Research from around the world points to links between broadband infrastructure and community development, particularly in Aboriginal communities (O'Donnell et al, 2010a and 2010b; Fiser, forthcoming). Benkler writes that "high capacity networks are seen as strategic infrastructure, intended to contribute to high and sustainable economic growth and to core aspects of human development" (Benkler, 2010: 11; see also Matear, 2002). Furthermore, Aboriginal communities can access unique benefits from broadband access. Falconer (2009) points to the sharing of culturally–specific languages, traditions and cultures, as well as more general uses such as health and education (ibid: 15). These benefits are generally accepted by the Government of Canada in numerous policy documents (see for example CRTC, 2010).

However, in part due to the lack of an integrated, inclusive broadband development policy process that adequately meets their unique contexts, many Aboriginal communities in Canada presently lack the infrastructure, and corresponding policy frameworks, that would enable them to achieve these goals. Industry Canada recognizes the specific challenges faced by rural and remote communities, as reflected in the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians program, which recently approved funding for 52 projects that will bring broadband access to an estimated 169,000 households — some of them in Aboriginal communities (Industry Canada, 2010d). However, as Industry Canada recognizes: "despite these continued investments, concerns have been raised that Canada is lagging [behind] its peers" (Industry Canada, 2010c: 16). Subsuming the unique contexts of Aboriginal communities under the general rubric of 'rural and remote communities' is one way that Canada's existing policy framework undermines opportunities for targeted, context–specific solutions to these challenges. Given the difficult business case for deploying networks in sparsely populated rural and remote areas, which is where many of Canada's Aboriginal communities are located, Industry Canada notes that governments around the world have attempted a variety of solutions to this problem, including direct funding, regulatory mandates and promoting market forces (ibid: 18).

This submission proposes that one useful approach Canada might draw on was that employed in the United States. The U.S. development of the National Broadband Plan offers Canada a targeted strategy that might better meet the specific needs of Aboriginal communities. In the U.S., the formal incorporation of Aboriginal involvement in broadband development policy was supported in the institutional development of that country's Plan. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC; the administrative body in charge of designing and implementing the Plan) gave Aboriginal communities specific, formal opportunities to present evidence of deficiencies in existing broadband networks and policy frameworks, while also highlighting the successes of community–based Aboriginal networks. These formal consultative opportunities included a chance for Aboriginal communities to put forward suggestions for substantive reforms to the Plan's language, funding mechanisms, and implementation, and even to the institutional structure of the FCC.

On March 2, 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced several changes to the draft Plan in an address to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI; remarks cited in Native Public Media, 2010). Genachowski framed the Plan's release as an opportunity for reform. He stated it was developed with input from Tribal leaders, who shared with the FCC challenges and Tribal–centric solutions, and gave examples of successful community–based networks drawn from a report by the NGO Native Public Media,¹ such as the Southern California Tribal Digital Village (ibid: 4; see Morris and Meinrath, 2010 for the report). He referred to the critiques and reform proposals put forward by the NCAI, as expressed by Native Public Media and another NGO, the Native American Broadband Association² (NABA; see Pruner, 2009 for NABA's comments to the FCC):

The clear message both in your comments and in these examples is that the unique circumstances of Tribes must be considered in the National Broadband Plan, and that Tribal governments must have a central role in developing solutions to increased broadband access and adoption to their communities (Native Public Media, 2010: 4).

To address these needs, Genachowski announced several funding programs to support infrastructure development that reflect proposals put forward by NPM and NABA. The Universal Service Fund will be reformed to encompass to broadband support, while other mechanisms will be specifically targeted to Tribes, including NPM funding for Tribal libraries, a separate Tribal Broadband Fund, and expanded E–rate and Rural Health Care programs for Aboriginal communities (ibid: 5). The Plan also adopted a number of administrative reforms, including the creation of Tribal seats on the Federal–State Joint Board on Universal Service and the Universal Service Administrative Company's³ Board of Directors, and a Federal–Tribal Broadband Initiative composed of Tribal leaders and federal officials. With regards to the FCC's institutional structure, the Plan recommends the creation of an Office of Tribal Affairs, and a task force of senior FCC Staff and Tribal leaders specifically focused on broadband deployment and adoption on Tribal lands (ibid: 5). As of July, 2010, it appears the FCC is moving forward on these proposed reforms (FCC, June 2, 2010).

Canadian policy–makers might also look to our own country's past when considering an inclusive approach to broadband infrastructure development. In her history of Canada's Aboriginal broadcasting system, Roth (2005) describes how First Peoples successfully leveraged the success of already–existing community–based broadcasting projects, and the evidence of a deficiency of access and representation in 'mainstream' broadcasting when building a national Aboriginal broadcasting system. In the absence of a coordinated national strategy for Aboriginal broadcasting, community–based Aboriginal groups focused on using government funding to build self–organized communication projects to compensate for the federal government's lack of support for a culturally and linguistically inclusive broadcasting service. The success of these community–based broadcasting projects was used by Aboriginal communities as "accumulated evidence of project success [that] became the basis for a policy dialogue between First Peoples and the federal government" (Roth, 2007: 122). This development strategy was grounded in the special relationship that the Government of Canada has in place with Aboriginal communities in Canada, as reflected in pieces of legislation such as the Indian Act (1876 and subsequent revisions). Roth describes the success of Aboriginal peoples to enshrine formal support of an Aboriginal broadcasting system in the 1991 Broadcasting Act, which "both materially recognized and legislatively acknowledged Canada's distinct need for a decentralized and deprofessionalized communications system as a strategy for coping for its unique geography and its culturally and racially diverse populations" (Roth, 2007: 39).

Scholars of broadband development policy in Canada have already put forward proposals that echo these two approaches. A paper by Matear (2002) noted that despite the challenges faced by a rural and remote broadband development policy rooted in market forces, "an operational business case [for rural and remote broadband infrastructure] is possible given the right combination of strategic planning, demand aggregation, and public–private partnerships" (Matear, 2002: paragraph 19). Given a lack of co–ordination at the federal level, communities should focus on regionally–based strategic planning that avoids 'overcentralization', which can result in impractical, infeasible, or irrelevant projects (Matear, 2002: paragraph 22). For these reasons, the focus should be on developing community–based networks, where "community needs rather than service providers or government bureaucrats play the dominant role" (Falconer, 2009: 17). Fiser (forthcoming) offers a comprehensive survey of Canadian Aboriginal communities that are already pursing doing this.

Arguments for more substantive involvement in national broadband infrastructure development already have a history among Canada's Aboriginal communities. For years, Aboriginal leaders have argued for public policies that better support the coordinated development of community–driven broadband infrastructure (see for example Delio, 2001 and J. Whiteduck, 2009). These arguments note the potential to build on existing government funding supports, and on the successes of community–based broadband networks. They argue for more coordinated funding and increased participation for Aboriginal communities in national broadband policy–making. However, the forms these arguments take have necessarily been shaped by the specific institutional contexts and opportunities presently available in Canada. For example, at the 2009 Aboriginal Policy Research Conference,⁴ researchers and Aboriginal leaders argued for the need for more sustained, coordinated federal support in the ongoing creation and maintenance of community–based Aboriginal broadband networks. They presented empirical evidence highlighting how these networks are successfully administered at the national, regional and local levels by Aboriginal communities. They argued that the federal government has an opportunity to build on these existing successes and provide more sustained, coordinated support of a national Aboriginal broadband network.

As noted earlier, national broadband development policy in Canada presently subsumes context–specific Aboriginal policies and practices under the general rubric of 'rural and remote' broadband development (Industry Canada, 2009). This generalization obscures the unique conditions and histories of Aboriginal communities, which in turn impacts the ability of these communities to build and access broadband infrastructure that fits their needs. Furthermore, to date community–based Aboriginal broadband development projects in Canada have been funded by a variety of short–term, ad hoc programs, many of which are designed with a 'one–size–fits–all' approach. As was clearly demonstrated in the development of Aboriginal broadcasting in Canada (Roth, 2005) and the development of Aboriginal broadband infrastructure in the U.S. (FCC, 2000 and 2007) any attempt to develop a suitable communications infrastructure must take into consider the specific histories and economic, cultural, social, and political contexts of Aboriginal communities. Substantive, community–based participatory development processes, recognition of the unique local contexts of Aboriginal peoples, and participatory institutional processes must accompany any comprehensive broadband infrastructure development strategy in Canada.

For these reasons, the National Digital Strategy must be designed in partnership with Canada's Aboriginal communities. These communities are already involved in developing broadband infrastructure, governance and administration; the National Digital Strategy offers an opportunity to build on these local and regional successes and incorporate them in a comprehensive national strategy. Processes are already in place that might help facilitate these goals. For example, parallel to Industry Canada's Digital Economy Consultation, another federal government department — Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) — is working towards developing an Aboriginal Connectivity Strategy in a process that will be ongoing at least to the end of 2010. This submission proposes that the work being done by these two departments (Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) be harmonized so that the specific contexts of Aboriginal communities, and the Aboriginal Connectivity Strategy, are considered in the development of the National Digital Strategy.

Benefits to Canada

The approach outlined in this submission offers several benefits to Canada, which can be summarized in five points:

First, it offers an opportunity for the Government of Canada to address a widely acknowledged 'digital divide' in Canada's Aboriginal communities (see for example Smith, 2008). The regions and communities this submission focuses on presently suffer from a deficiency of broadband access when compared to Canada's urban population; a situation that has been explained in part as due to the lack of commercial incentives for market–based infrastructure development projects, and of supportive, coordinated public policies (Falconer, 2009; O'Donnell et al, 2010a; CRTC, 2010). This 'digital divide' is exacerbated by socio–economic factors: in general, the lower the socio–economic position of a household, the less likely they are to access broadband Internet (see for example Cooper, 2010). Furthermore, the problem is potentially getting worse. In both Canada and the U.S., telecommunications policies have moved towards a greater reliance on private capital to fund the construction and maintenance of broadband networks. This approach has been critiqued in light of research that highlights pricing mechanisms and infrastructure costs as a primary source of the growing 'digital divide'. Critics argue that rural and remote areas, and areas of low socioeconomic status, are unattractive locations for profit–oriented commercial Internet service providers to build and maintain infrastructure, given the low return on investment over the short term (CRTC, 2009; Cooper, 2010). Informed policy that might increase support for broadband infrastructure, governance and administration development in these areas might help address this growing discrepancy in access to the 'digital economy'. Any policy aiming to achieve this goal must include Aboriginal perspectives and input.

Second, this submission argues for the need to articulate a more coordinated broadband infrastructure development policy for Canada. Policy in this area has historically suffered from an overly–centralized, short–term, 'siloed' approach — particularly when considered in Aboriginal communities (O'Donnell et al, 2010a). As a result, development policy and funding decisions are often fragmented, and fail to consider the specific contexts and needs of these communities. As Matear (2002) argues, in order to best facilitate local community development, broadband infrastructure policy must incorporate community–based solutions and local participation. Despite the gaps in existing policy, Canada already has a range of successful community–based administrative and governance structures in place, many of which are located in Aboriginal communities. For example, the Assembly of First Nations has developed a nation–wide plan for Aboriginal broadband development policy (J. Whiteduck, 2009). At the community level, organizations like K–Net in Northern Ontario are building and administering broadband infrastructure networks designed to meet the specific social, economic and cultural needs of their communities (Carpenter, 2009). The development of the National Digital Strategy is an opportunity to highlight 'best practices' (and challenges) that might harmonize these locally–based success stories with national policy.

Third, communications infrastructure development shares a long history with the political and economic sovereignty of the Canadian state. The transcontinental railroad and telephone infrastructure help unite the country in its early years (Babe, 1990). Satellites and broadcasting links enabled Aboriginal communities to develop a critically and commercially successful national (and now, international) broadcasting system that continues to meet the specific needs of local populations (Roth, 2005). Canadian communications policy–making has played an important role in connecting diverse communities in ways that empower local communities while benefitting the nation as a whole. Broadband infrastructure development — particularly for Aboriginal communities — can play an important part in this ongoing process.

Fourth, the Canadian government has demonstrated its support in forging a 'new relationship' with Aboriginal populations through public commitments to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and (qualified) support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples. For example, the March 3, 2010 Speech from the Throne stated that:

We are a country with an Aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada's Constitution and laws (Government of Canada, 2010: paragraph 113).

A broadband infrastructure development policy that substantively involves Canada's Aboriginal communities can play an important role in signaling the Government of Canada's commitment to these initiatives.

Fifth, research has documented many already–existing examples of successful community–based broadband development projects in Aboriginal communities (Fiser et al, 2005; Middleton and Crow, 2008; McKelvey and O'Donnell, 2009). For example, O'Donnell et al (2010) highlight the role of broadband infrastructure in supporting health and wellness. The First Nations SchoolNet program offers one strong example of how broadband can assist with educational initiatives in Aboriginal communities (Potter, 2009 and Walmark, 2009; see also INAC 2009). A National Digital Strategy that supports these recognized successes not only offers an opportunity to build on Canada's own 'best practices', but also showcase to the world the benefits of a 'made–in–Canada' solution to the challenges of inclusive broadband infrastructure development.

Conclusion

As this submission has highlighted, Canada's National Digital Strategy might be enriched by a more sustained, substantive consideration of the specific needs of the Aboriginal communities living in Canada. Our neighbours to the south incorporated substantive Aboriginal involvement in the development and implementation of that country's National Broadband Plan. Given that Canada is presently embarking on a similar process, there is an opportunity to follow the precedent set by the U.S. Furthermore, we have followed a similar approach before, as demonstrated in the development of Canada's world–renowned Aboriginal broadcasting infrastructure.

The National Digital Strategy is an opportunity to build on our past and present successes by showcasing and supporting the well–documented achievements of many community–based Canadian Aboriginal broadband infrastructure projects. It can help ensure that our country's broadband infrastructure adequately meets the unique needs of all whom it is designed to serve. It is an opportunity to enshrine substantive Aboriginal community involvement in broadband development policy — at a time when Canada has formally and publicly signaled its commitment to a 'new relationship' with Aboriginal peoples through the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and its recent (qualified) recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples. In short, the National Digital Strategy offers an additional opportunity for the Government of Canada to demonstrate to its citizens, and to the world, its continued commitment to upholding the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

Submitted by:

Rob McMahon, Doctoral Candidate & Richard Smith, Professor
Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology
Simon Fraser University
515 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 5K3

Works Cited

Babe, Robert E. (1990). Telecommunications in Canada: Technology, Industry and Government, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Benkler, Yochai. (2010). Next generation connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world. Cambridge: The Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, Harvard University.

Canadian Radio–Television and Telecommunications Commission. (2010). Appendix 6: Universal Broadband Access, Navigating convergence: Charting Canadian communications change and regulatory implications. URL: Convergence policy, policy development and research.

Carpenter, Penny. (2009). The Kuhkenah Network (K–Net): A First Nations digital broadband highway connecting communities, service providers and researchers in partnership with public, private and not–for–profit groups. Conference paper, submitted to the Aboriginal policy research conference, Ottawa, March 9–12, 2009.

Cooper, Mark. (2010). The challenge of digital exclusion in America: A review of the social science literature and its implications for the U.S. National Broadband Plan. Washington, D.C.: Consumer Federation of America.

Delio, Michelle. (September 11, 2001). URL: Natives to Canada: Broadband now. Wired magazine.

Falconer, David. (July 2009). Rural and remote broadband access: Public policy issues. The journal of policy engagement: 1(3), 15–20.

Federal Communications Commission (June 8, 2000). URL: Statement of policy on establishing a government–to–government relationship with Indian tribes.

Federal Communications Commission (2007). Washington, D.C.: Consumer & Governmental Affairs. URL: Expanding telecommunications access in Indian Country.

Federal Communications Commission (March 16, 2010b). URL: Connecting America: The national broadband plan.

Fiser, Adam; Clement, Andrew;, Walmark, Brian. (2005). The K–Net development process: A model for First Nations broadband community networks. Conference paper, Telecommunications policy review conference, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia. (September, 23–25, 2005).

Fiser, Adam. (2010, forthcoming). A map of broadband deployment in Canada's Aboriginal and Northern communities: access, management models, and digital divides (circa 2009), Communication, politics & culture, 43(1), RMIT Publishing.

Government of Canada (March 3, 2010). Ottawa: Speech from the Throne. URL: Speech from the Throne.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2009). Evaluation of the First Nations SchoolNet program: Final report. Evaluation, performance measurement and review branch, audit and evaluation sector, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Industry Canada (2009). URL: Broadband Canada: Connecting rural Canadians: Application guide.

Industry Canada (2010a). Industry Canada news release, May 10, 2010. URL: Government of Canada launches national consultations on a digital economy strategy.

Industry Canada (2010b). Submission guidelines: Digital economy consultation.

Industry Canada (2010c). Improving Canada's digital advantage: Strategies for sustainable prosperity. Consultation paper on a digital economy strategy for Canada. Public Works and Government Services Canada: Ottawa. URL: Consultation Paper.

Industry Canada (2010d). Industry Canada news release, May 9, 2010. URL: Minister Clement announces First Projects to receive broadband Canada funding.

Matear, Maggie. (2002). Canada must make broadband infrastructure a priority. Canadian journal of communication, 27(4).

McKelvey, Fenwick and O'Donnell, Susan. (2009). Out from the edges: Multi–site videoconferencing as a public sphere in First Nations. Journal of community informatics, 5(2), page 1–16.

Middleton, Catherine. and Crow, Barbara. (2008). Building wi–fi networks for communities: three Canadian cases. Canadian journal of communication, 33(3), page 419–441.

Morris, Traci. L. and Meinrath, Sasha. D. (2009). New media, technology and internet use in Indian Country: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Washington, D.C.: Native Public Media and New America Foundation: Open Technology Initiative.

URL: Native American Broadband Association (2009). Home page.

Native Public Media (March 1, 2010). URL: Prepared remarks of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Washington, D.C.: National Congress of American Indians: 2010 Executive Council Winter Session.

O'Donnell, Susan; Milliken, Mary; Chong, Corinna; and Walmark, Brian. (2010a). Information and communication technologies (ICT) and remote and rural First Nations communities: An overview. Presented at the Canadian communication association annual conference (CCA 2010), Montreal, June 1–3, 2010.

O'Donnell, S., Molyneaux, H., Gorman, E., Milliken, M., Chong, C., Gibson, K., Oakley, P., Maitland, J. (2010b) Information and Communication Technologies to Support Health and Wellness in Remote and Rural First Nations Communities: Literature Review. Fredericton: National Research Council, May, 136 pages.

Potter, D. (2009). Collaborative research development studying digital education with remote aboriginal communities. Conference paper, submitted to the Aboriginal policy research conference, Ottawa, March 9–12, 2009.

Pruner, Mark. (November 30, 2009). URL: Comments of the native American broadband association. Presented to the Rural Utilities Service, etc: Docket No: 097141137–91375–05

Roth, Lorna. (2005). Something new in the air: The story of First Peoples television broadcasting in Canada. Montreal and Kingston: McGill–Queen's University Press.

Smith, R. (2008). First Nations communication research: Final report. Vancouver: School for communication and centre for policy research on science and technology, Simon Fraser University.

Walmark, Brian. (2009). Reclaiming First Nations research: The Keewaytinook Okimakanak research institute. Conference paper, submitted to the Aboriginal policy research conference, Ottawa, March 9–12, 2009.

Whiteduck, Judy. (2009). Building the First Nation e–community. Conference paper, submitted to the Aboriginal policy research conference, Ottawa, March 9–12, 2009.

¹ See: Native Public Media

² See: Native American Broadband Association

³ This is an independent, not–for–profit corporation designated as the administrator of the federal Universal Service Fund by the FCC. See: Universal Service Administrative Company