Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number four of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, the committee is commencing its study of indigenous policing and public safety.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to remind committee members of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by your name before speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage as such.

Before we begin, I would like to draw to the attention of our members the budget for this particular study on indigenous policing and public safety. The amount requested is $58,050.

Is everyone is favour of adopting the budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. From the Office of the Auditor General, we have Andrew Hayes, deputy auditor general; Jo Ann Schwartz, principal; and Jennifer Hum, audit project leader.

You have five minutes for your opening statement, after which we will proceed to rounds of questions.

Proceed, please.

[Andrew Hayes, Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General]

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee today in the context of its study on indigenous policing and public safety.

Today I will be discussing our 2024 report on the first nations and Inuit policing program. I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Joining me today are Jo Ann Schwartz, the principal who was responsible for the audit, and Jennifer Hum, the audit project leader.

The first nations and Inuit policing program was created in 1991. We audited this program in 2014, 11 years ago, and again in 2024. Both times, we found critical shortcomings in how the program was being managed. Public Safety Canada is the lead in managing and overseeing the program. We found that the department did not work in partnership with indigenous communities to provide equitable access to policing services that were tailored to their needs.

Through the program's community tripartite agreements, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, delivers dedicated policing services that supplement the ones from the province or territory. We found that the RCMP did not work in partnership with indigenous communities to provide proactive policing services.

While funding had significantly increased since our last audit in 2014, we found that $13 million of funds earmarked for the 2022-23 fiscal year went unspent. In October 2023, Public Safety Canada had anticipated that over $45 million of program funds would be left undisbursed at the end of that fiscal year. According to the department's 2023-24 results report, almost $48 million was left undisbursed. This was concerning in the context of a program intended to support the safety of indigenous communities.

Public Safety Canada did not have an approach for distributing funds equitably among communities. The department told us that it relied on the extent to which provinces and territories were willing to fund their share of the program, as well as the funding that communities had received in the past, to determine the amounts allocated.

From fiscal year 2018–19 to fiscal year 2022–23, the RCMP was unable to fill all positions for which it received funding under tripartite community agreements. As a result, first nations and Inuit communities did not receive the proactive, community-based policing services they should have received.

Ultimately, neither Public Safety Canada nor the RCMP was able to determine whether the requirements set out in the policing agreements were being met and whether the program was producing the expected results. It's important to monitor and analyze data not only to meet the safety and security needs of communities, but also to support their self-determination.

Given that this program hasn't been updated since 1996 and has long-standing issues, Public Safety Canada must work with first nations and Inuit communities, provinces and territories, and the RCMP to find a more effective and proactive way to deliver culturally appropriate services.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. We would be happy to answer any questions from the members of the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Andrew. That's right on time.

For the first round, each party will have six minutes. We will start with MP Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming for this very important study. I appreciate your feedback and view into some of the challenges with this program.

In your two audits, in the time between the first one and the second one, how many recommendations were worked on and how many objectives were completed when you looked at it the second time around?

[Andrew Hayes]

I don't think I can give you a precise answer to that question. What I can say is that, in this audit, we found that many of the recommendations we made in 2014 still remained unaddressed. This wasn't a direct follow-up of our 2014 work, but findings such as the need to update the program policy, which dated back to 1996.... That hadn't been done, despite an agreement to our recommendation in 2014.

There were findings in 2014 about the importance of meaningful engagement with communities. Again, we found that this was a problem here. Finance and funds allocated had been determined without engaging with the communities. Again, we found that the departments did not monitor or report on whether the program was funding police services that were dedicated and responsive to the needs of communities.

In effect, these are major findings from 2014 that still exist now.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Wow. Okay. That's quite significant, when you said 1996 was the last time someone really dove into it and made substantial changes. A lot has changed in the world and in policing in general, especially with indigenous policing.

In 2019—this is the political side—the Prime Minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, said in a mandate letter to the ministers that there was a direction to move into making indigenous policing “an essential service”.

Based on what you're seeing and any new information you may have in front of you—I know you mentioned the vacancies in the RCMP that went unfilled—do you think the department is any closer to achieving that goal, or is there too much work still to be done?

[Andrew Hayes]

I think that would be a question, in the context of your study, that I would pose to the department.

What I can point you to in our report is that in exhibit 3.2, we talk about the fact that in 2021, $43.7 million was identified over five years to co-develop legislation to recognize first nations policing services as an essential service. To my knowledge, I don't know that legislation or draft legislation has been put before the House on that. Getting an update from the department might be something that the committee may want to ask.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Yes, absolutely. We're hoping to have them here a little later today. I thought that if you knew, I could probably direct my question. That's okay. It's no problem.

You mentioned the RCMP and unfilled vacancies. During your research, was there a reason or reasons given as to why a great number of positions were vacant at the time?

[Andrew Hayes]

There are definitely challenges for the RCMP in recruiting the officers they need for police services nationwide. I think that's a reality. In fact, we will be doing an audit of recruitment by the RCMP, which we intend to present to Parliament in the spring of 2026.

When I look at this program in particular and our findings back in 2024, one of the challenges that faced the RCMP is that Public Safety Canada would be entering into agreements and committing the RCMP to particular service levels without engaging with the RCMP at the time. We made a recommendation about the importance of everybody being part of those discussions. I think the RCMP should be part of those discussions in order to be able to plan their work and their staffing needs.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

In your view—again, if you don't know the answer, it's fine, and I'll ask the RCMP when they come to a future meeting—at the time, was there any program that you were aware of or can recall that focused on recruiting indigenous people to join the RCMP to patrol in areas that were under-serviced?

[Andrew Hayes]

I do know that the RCMP has been trying to recruit from various backgrounds. I think that is a question that might be best put to the RCMP. It will be something that we will be looking at in the context of our audit, but seeing as how you'll likely have them in front of you before our report comes out in the spring, that would be a question for them.

My colleague, Ms. Schwartz, might want to add something here.

[Jo Ann Schwartz, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

While I can't speak specifically to a strategy for indigenous recruitment, we did find that the RCMP didn't have a national staffing approach that would focus on how it would fill the gaps it had for the community tripartite agreements. We talk about that in our report, in paragraph 3.56. Such a national staffing approach could consider whether they want to have specific attention for recruitment of indigenous officers, but there was no national approach when we looked at it in 2024.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 10 seconds.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

I don't think I have time to get into my next one, but a lot of what we're talking about today has been raised in a debate that we're having in the House right now, about how reports are being tabled and the information is there, but departments are not following through. The fact is that the program has not been updated since 1996. We've had two reports and still we have issues. I think that highlights the ongoing problem with departments not following through with what has been committed to, so thank you for your input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, MP Schmale.

Now we'll go to MP Hanley for six minutes, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much for being here.

It's really interesting to begin this really important study with your report, which of course covered some gaps and deficiencies in how well the federal funding flow is having an impact and where we need to improve.

In the report, you discuss different models of funding that are available through federal sources, including the tripartite agreements, which, as far as I can determine from the report and the map, apply to Yukon communities. For context, most communities in the Yukon are made up of a mix of first nation and non-first nation citizens. We don't have reserves in the territory, as you know, and 11 of the 14 Yukon first nations are self-governing, with modern treaties.

I don't see modern treaty nations specifically referred to in the report. No doubt it was in your discussions and your consultations. I am aware of some of the previous Assembly of First Nations deliberations in the area of indigenous policing, such as a resolution in December 2021 where they advocated for “a Nation-to-Nation, Treaty-based approach to the development of policing legislation and supporting [the development of] regional policing solutions that include the transfer of sustainable, guaranteed funding to the respective regions.”

Following that, there was a regional assembly in the Yukon, a summit, and some of the themes in that summit to inform the national AFN recommendations were “Supporting the Modern Treaty Rights”; recognizing and addressing “Mental Health and Community Safety”, including appropriate resources; “Shifting Towards Prevention, Healing, and Restorative Justice”; and “Learning from the Community Safety Officer Program”. A lot of that we will be addressing during this study, I hope.

Of course, none of that removes the need for adequately resourced frontline policing, but they're all important for a holistic and sustainable approach to community safety and justice.

I guess my question, after that long preamble—uncharacteristically long, I might say—is this: Were policing services in nations with modern treaties considered in your report?

[Andrew Hayes]

We focused on the way the government works through this policy, this program. Our focus wasn't really on the provision of police services per se. What we were interested in was whether or not the RCMP and Public Safety, in the nature of their responsibility for this program, engaged with the first nations and the Inuit communities to identify how to deliver policing services that were tailored to the needs of those communities and that were responsive to their cultural realities.

I wouldn't say that I'm able to speak specifically about how it is in a particular community that's covered by modern treaties. As the Auditor General of Canada, we are also the auditor in Yukon, so we are familiar with the realities in Yukon, but I can't say that this audit has the disaggregated information at that level.

What I do think is important from our recommendations, particularly to the RCMP, is the importance of cultural awareness training and engagement.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, those are very important points. Thank you.

I also didn't see.... When you refer to inequities, particularly with regard to Public Safety's role, how did you define “equitable” in your report? How would we then determine how to address inequities? What are the measures that we should use?

[Andrew Hayes]

Thank you very much for that question. To me, that is one of the areas I think this committee can really dig into and add some value.

To put a bit of a frame around it, the policy refers to the idea of providing funds “equitably”, but as we said in our report, Public Safety Canada did not define what equitable funding meant. In other audits that we did, we talked about the concept of equity. I don't want to be in the position of setting policy, but generally, equity refers to outcomes, getting to equal outcomes—not looking at it from the perspective of equality but of equity, bringing the furthest up from behind.

What we found in this audit—on the basis of the documents we reviewed—was that funding allocation wasn't based on priorities relating to equity. It was really related to whether or not a province or a territory was ready to provide their portion of funding and—particularly in relation to the $500 million of additional funding that was provided almost five years ago now—it was related to the historic funding that had been provided to some of these communities. Putting it in a different way, the funding has largely been used to stabilize existing agreements, rather than expanding it to other communities.

Concepts of equity might bring a different result if they were applied.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Brendan.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ten years ago, former auditor general Michael Ferguson said that the program wasn't working as intended. Ten years later, your audit comes to the same conclusion.

How is it that your audit raises the same systemic issues after more than a decade? What's the problem?