Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you to the member for that question. I think one of the key phrases that you have used is that it's funding for policing services.
There's traditionally a direct link. When indigenous communities or even the general public mention law enforcement, a lot of policy-makers and lawmakers think directly into policing. That's not necessarily the case for indigenous communities.
For example, there are communities that do not want a policing service. They do not want a self-administered policing service at all under the first nations policing program. What some of them would like is better investment into infrastructure and appointment of enforcement officers, whether it be peacekeepers or community safety officers or whatever we want to call them. The reason for that is that some of these communities have good service or a good relationship with the police of jurisdiction, and with that, a lot of the times the police jurisdictions simply do not have the resources to provide adequate service for the communities or be able to enforce the laws, such as the treaty laws or the bylaws under the Indian Act or the laws under the First Nations Land Management Act.
What we would like to see is a divestment, a move away from funding strictly guided towards policing and a broader approach to community safety or public safety and enforcement on indigenous territories. This is by no means advocating a decrease in funding for our self-administered policing partners, when in truth there are many who are in desperate need of a funding infusion. However, we do also need to see funding as well for—for lack of a better term—a tiered law enforcement program in which officers are not police but still deal with administrative regulatory enforcement and quasi-criminal enforcement in support of the police of jurisdiction.