National Defence Committee on April 20th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the committee is meeting to study the situation of francophones and indigenous people in the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Before we continue, I ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table. These measures are to help prevent audio and feedback incidences and to protect the health and safety of our interpreters.

I'd like to remind witnesses and members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand, and for those on Zoom please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For interpretation, use your earpiece and select the appropriate channel of floor, English or French, which are also available on Zoom.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Grazia Scoppio, professor emerita of defence studies, Royal Military College of Canada, by video conference. We have Danielle Teillet with us here live, a historian on indigenous military history. We have Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer, professor and Canada research chair in the study of the Canadian north, also by video conference. We have Peter Kikkert, associate professor, public policy and governance, Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, also by video conference.

I'll pass it over first to Grazia, and then to Danielle and Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer. We'll end with Peter Kikkert. You all have up to five minutes.

Ms. Grazia Scoppio, it's over to you, please.

[Grazia Scoppio, Professor Emerita of Defence Studies, Royal Military College of Cananda, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I am Dr. Grazia Scoppio. I'm joining this meeting from Kingston, Ontario, situated on the traditional homeland of the Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe people. I'm thankful to these nations for their care and stewardship of this shared land.

For over 20 years, I've been conducting research on military personnel, including recruitment of a diverse force, gender issues in the armed forces, immigrant participation in the military and indigenous people in the military. In recent years, the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, has made strides in its efforts to increase the diversity of its personnel, changing policies and improving organizational culture to become more inclusive and equitable. On the other hand, there are still challenges. I will highlight here only a few of the issues concerning indigenous members of the CAF, and I look forward to discussing them further during the meeting.

Representation rates of indigenous members in the CAF are slowly increasing and currently stand at about 3% of CAF members. However, this rate is still below the CAF recruiting goal of 3.5% and lower than the overall indigenous population in Canada of about 5%. Indeed, the CAF is still not meeting its overall recruiting targets. As documented in many reports, as recently as in the 2025 Auditor General of Canada's report, the recruiting system is very slow, and more than 50% of applicants, including indigenous individuals, withdraw from the process.

Indigenous programs, namely the CAF indigenous entry program, the indigenous leadership opportunity year, or ILOY, and the indigenous summer programs, such as Bold Eagle and Raven, are effective means of attracting indigenous youth, although all position are not filled, and there are challenges in retaining participants once they complete the programs.

There are also issues stemming from the CAF organizational culture. It has not been inclusive towards indigenous members, despite the creation of supports such as CAF indigenous advisers. Also, there is a mandatory indigenous cultural awareness course via distance learning for all CAF members, which ends up being a check in the box without much learning.

Other issues concerning indigenous members of the CAF include early attrition and a lack of support for travel to attend funerals in remote indigenous communities for family members, which may not fall under the CAF guidelines. Additionally, some indigenous members have experienced discrimination and racism during their military service. This is also the experience of other racialized groups in the CAF, as evidenced by the recent formal apology delivered by General Jennie Carignan, the chief of the defence staff, to current and former CAF members who suffered from the impacts of systemic racism, racial discrimination and racial harassment during their military service.

Despite these challenges and barriers, many indigenous members choose to join the CAF to serve Canada with loyalty. This provides them with a pathway to economic and social mobility, and a fulfilling military career.

Increasing the meaningful and respectful participation of indigenous members in the CAF is extremely important for many reasons, including to reflect the diversity of the Canadian indigenous population, to enhance the CAF's presence in the north and to promote reconciliation. To paraphrase the words of General Carignan, the CAF can do better and must do better.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you very much.

I'm passing it over now to Danielle Teillet for up to five minutes.

[Danielle Teillet, Historian, Indigenous Military History, Canadian War Museum]

Taanishi. Hello. My name is Danielle Teillet, and I am a Red River Métis and settler originally from Treaty No. 1 territory. I am now a guest here on the unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinabe territory. I'm also the inaugural historian of indigenous military history at the Canadian War Museum.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to contribute to this important study. As a historian, I can offer a historical overview of some experiences of indigenous military service, but I'm not well positioned to speak to more contemporary issues.

Understanding the historical context of indigenous military service can provide us with crucial insights into present-day issues. As you can imagine, five minutes can only scratch the surface of this very complex history. To understand the challenges indigenous service people faced in the early 20th-century World War era, it's critical to consider the broader context of how indigenous people were treated in general through systemic discrimination and colonial policies and legislation. The government and society's treatment of indigenous veterans was inextricably linked to the treatment of indigenous people in general.

There were certain barriers that shaped the voluntary enlistment and service of indigenous people during this era. For example, initially during the First World War, first nations people were dissuaded by the government from enlisting. This was partly based on unfavourable and racist depictions in popular literature at the time, which led to a paternalistic logic that the Germans might refuse to extend the supposed “privileges of civilized warfare” to first nation soldiers. In the Second World War, recruitment for the navy and air force initially required enlisters to be “of pure European descent and of the white race”. Restrictive policies like these were not applied universally, and as casualties mounted in both wars, these types of barriers were abandoned in an effort to boost recruitment.

Conscription, once introduced in both world wars, was intended to include all indigenous people, or at least the government did not see any reason that it would not. Petitions from first nations communities across the country argued that the lack of full citizenship rights of first nations people meant that they should not be forced to go to war like enfranchised Canadians.

Eventually, the government exempted all status Indians from being conscripted in the First World War. There was no such blanket exemption during the Second World War, so only first nations individuals from certain treaty areas, where verbal promises were made to not have to fight in future wars, were exempt from being compelled to serve overseas.

For many indigenous individuals who served during this era, wartime service was the first time they had experienced a sense of equality with their white settler peers. However, they would return to Canada, after their service, to the same discrimination they had known before they enlisted.

Indigenous veterans did not generally receive equal treatment after returning to civilian life. Status Indian veterans, specifically, returned home to a life as wards of the state. Restrictions such as the prohibition on the sale of alcohol to status Indians meant that many first nations veterans could not participate in Legion activities, since liquor was served at many functions. Furthermore, the right to vote federally did not come for status Indian men until 1960. They did not have the full rights and benefits of citizenship under Canada's Indian Act, but had voluntarily enlisted to go to war for Canada anyway.

There was a shared feeling among many indigenous veterans that there was a disconnect between the significance of their wartime service and sacrifices and the political, economic and social realities they returned home to. This was in large part because they were excluded in many cases from accessing veteran supports. Pensions and benefits, such as land and financial grants that the government set up to support veterans after both wars, were notionally available to all veterans; however, most indigenous claims were denied.

These injustices had lasting impacts for many indigenous veterans, some of whom went on to organize politically to lobby for indigenous and veterans rights after their service. These experiences are well documented in the literature and in interviews with indigenous veterans.

Hopefully, this very brief historical overview has provided some context as you explore more current issues in this study. The challenges indigenous service people faced in the post-world war era's discriminatory social, legislative and policy structures persisted for a long time, as did the lack of recognition they received.

Marsi, and thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer, it's over to you for five minutes.

[P. Whitney Lackenbauer, Professor and Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University]

Thank you.

I'm glad to be joining you from Oxford County, on traditional Anishinabek and neutral territory that is covered by the Upper Canada treaties.

For the last three decades, I have dedicated much of my academic career to understanding indigenous people's service in the armed forces and their contributions to the defence of our homeland. From the outset, I have been enamoured with the Canadian Rangers—proud Canadians who serve in a unique subcomponent of the reserve force. Their long-standing mission is to provide a military presence in sparsely settled northern, coastal and isolated areas of Canada that cannot conveniently or economically be provided by other components of the Canadian Armed Forces. With more than 5,000 members in more than 200 communities, they do so admirably.

In my assessment, the Canadian Rangers are a prime example of substantive versus symbolic integration of indigenous and military ways of knowing, being and seeing. We have lots of policies that have affirmative language about the importance of indigenous traditional knowledge and engagement, as well as the importance of consultation and partnership, but they ultimately do not share agenda-setting or decision-making authority in a substantive way. The Canadian Rangers are a success story of a practical indigenous-Crown partnership rooted in reciprocal trust and respect.

I have written lots of books and articles about the history of the Canadian Rangers, the high rates of indigenous participation in the organization and why I see the rangers as a positive example of reconciliation. I always want to highlight that the rangers are not part of an indigenous program. They are reservists. They are not part of a program, and participation is open to all Canadians. In small communities in our Arctic and north, where Inuit, first nations and Métis make up the largest percentage of the populations in their homelands, this is reflected in the composition of the Canadian Rangers.

The army's official statistics, which we just heard referenced, are rooted in a highly problematic methodology and a skewed self-identification dataset that continuously under-represent indigenous participation in the rangers, and they often exclude the rangers from statistics on indigenous people's participation rates in the CAF as a whole.

I wrote a report in 2021 in which I suggested that if we had corrected the figures for the rangers, it would have actually adjusted the estimated number of indigenous people serving in the CAF at that time to more than 5%. This is well above the CAF employment equity target of 3.5% indigenous representation.

The first thing I would suggest is to have these statistics critically re-examined and updated. I say this because I find the persistent under-representation of indigenous service troubling on various levels.

First, it fails to conceptualize the CAF as an employer of choice for indigenous peoples, particularly those living outside of the main population belt. This means a shift in mindset to understand how we can better support them to reinforce success and expand functional opportunities.

If I were being cynical, I might also read this under-representation in the context of Canada's historical failure to credit indigenous people for their service to Canada. In the case of the rangers, the per capita rates of service by indigenous people in remote communities in the territorial north and Inuit Nunangat are far above the national average. We need to celebrate this more directly and not turn immediately to the need to increase numbers.

I have said the rangers, in my mind, have always been more substantive than symbolic as a form of differentiated military service that's aligned with the priorities of northern indigenous communities. This logic was laid out in the 1970s, when the military began to revitalize the ranger organization in the Arctic when it moved to community-based patrols with leadership selected by the rangers themselves. This local self-determination has been a hallmark of the rangers ever since and brings legitimacy at the local level.

Also, by encouraging rangers to serve in their home communities, you're leaving talent in the north. You're not trying to recruit it outside of the north, and therefore you're leaving northern leadership where it is most needed. The value of this still holds today. Also, the simple fact that there is no retirement age is a strong validation of how the military accepts the value of the wisdom and expertise of elders in enabling safe and effective northern operations. We can talk during questions and answers about how the rangers use their own equipment and clothing on operations, and how this fits with indigenous practices.

To wrap up, a misplaced critique that you might hear is that the rangers are not trained for combat and therefore do not represent a credible defence. This misses the mark on several levels.

First and foremost, the rangers are force enablers who draw upon their local and indigenous knowledge to allow other CAF members to apply combat doctrine as required. They are pathfinders and guides, mentors and subject matter experts who know their communities and their homelands intimately. We have soldiers, special forces operators and other CAF personnel who can apply kinetic effects if needed. The rangers will get them onto target efficiently and effectively, and this is a huge competitive advantage.

Let's start talking seriously about the rangers' role as force multipliers. The late Simeonie Nalukturuk from Inukjuaq described the rangers to me as the eyeglasses, the hearing aids and the walking stick of the CAF in the north. In this, he suggested it's actually the regular forces and primary reservists who need the rangers to enable them.

Today, as we seek to bolster our northern defences, let's get the equation right. The rangers are a proven multiplier. If we want a larger product, we need to consider whether the regular force and primary reserves they are amplifying have the skills and experience needed to be multiplied effectively rather than thinking we need to retool the rangers. The old maxim “If it ain't broken, don't break it” applies here.

Rangers ensure that the CAF is stitched into the fabric of Inuit, first nations and Métis communities across the Canadian north. There is a reason the Greenlanders, the Danes, the Alaskans, the Swedes and other Nordic colleagues are interested in the ranger model for their countries.

The rangers are inseparable from indigenous self-determination, authority and resilience at the community level, and this must guide us forward as we consider how to enhance the organization to enable them more.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Professor Lackenbauer.

Mr. Kikkert, it's over to you, sir.

[Peter Kikkert, Associate Professor, Public Policy and Governance, Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, St. Francis Xavier University]

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you from Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq people. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

I have worked closely with the Canadian Rangers for 15 years, particularly in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Canadian Ranger patrol groups. Many of the rangers I work with are indigenous, and much of my research has focused on their roles in emergency response and in building resilience.

The Canadian Rangers are one of the most important emergency response assets in remote, northern and indigenous communities. They are present, organized, trusted and capable. As Abel Aqqaq, a ranger from Taloyoak, Nunavut, told me, “We are the eyes and ears of the military, but we are also the eyes and ears of our community. We protect our communities.” Baba Pedersen, another ranger from Kugluktuk, put it even more simply: “We are the people to call when things go sideways—period.”

They are. In recent years, rangers have responded to wildfires, floods, avalanches, severe storms, power outages, critical infrastructure failure, aircraft crashes and the COVID-19 pandemic. They conduct search and rescue, evacuations, wellness checks, resupply, and infrastructure protection. They provide the local and indigenous knowledge, the institutional awareness and the connections that make outside responses possible and effective.

They are exceptionally good at these roles. Just a few weeks ago, five rangers were awarded medals of bravery for rescuing two stranded French nationals in a blizzard near Naujaat, Nunavut, in 2020. During the 2019 evacuation of Pikangikum First Nation, Chief Amanda Sainnawap said the presence of rangers alone brought calm: “I don't know what we would have done without them.”

These are roles that rangers value and want to perform for their communities, and they are exactly the kinds of visible, meaningful activities that draw people to join. However, despite this, they face persistent barriers. It is often unclear when and how they can be activated for emergencies and search and rescue. Training opportunities are inconsistent. The emphasis on these roles waxes and wanes with leadership changes and shifting institutional priorities. As one former ranger from Kuujjuaq, Nunavik, told me, “The roles and expectations change a lot.... It's frustrating. We need consistency. We want to serve our communities, so give us the tools and skills to do this. Make it simple.”

Let me offer three recommendations:

First, make it easier to use the rangers. Although the Canadian Armed Forces is intended to be a force of last resort in domestic emergencies, in many northern and indigenous communities, the rangers are the only timely and effective response, and policy must reflect that reality.

Clarify authorities and reduce jurisdiction friction. Ensure civilian agencies understand ranger capabilities and how to employ them, and streamline activation processes so they can be deployed quickly when needed. The memorandum of understanding on search and rescue between 3CRPG and the Ontario Provincial Police shows what this can look like.

Second, give the rangers the tools they need. Increase and sustain training and exercises that reflect the incidents to which rangers might have to respond and the needs of their communities: ground, ice and light urban search and rescue; flood and fire response; mass rescue operations; evacuations; and wilderness and advanced first aid. Support these efforts with regional equipment and technology solutions, building on initiatives like the new ranger team awareness kits.

Third, we must better understand and support the human dimension of ranger service. For rangers, responding to emergencies often means searching for or assisting family, friends, neighbours and elders. Sometimes it means finding them deceased. A good example of what they face are the many aircraft crashes that rangers have responded to over the years. Few accidents cause greater physical trauma to the victims, and I've heard many rangers talk about the effects of responding to these incidents.

It's also critical to understand that rangers often wear many other responder hats. They are volunteer firefighters, paramedics, search and rescue volunteers, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The cumulative impact of the trauma they experience is profound. A more holistic approach to their well-being is required, including improved awareness of and access to support programs such as the member assistance program and Veterans Affairs services; critical incident stress programming that better reflects indigenous realities and requirements; and recognition of their service, including, perhaps, development of a ranger responder medal.

Acting on these recommendations will strengthen more than a capability. It will also bolster ranger recruitment and retention. It will improve the institutional experience of indigenous rangers by supporting them in roles that matter deeply to them and to their communities.

I will close with this. When emergencies happen in Canada's most remote regions, the Canadian Rangers are already there and ready. The question is whether we will give them the tools, training and support they need to keep protecting their communities.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

I appreciate the opening remarks from all of you to start the session.

Ms. Gallant will begin our first round of questioning.

You have up to six minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Dr. Scoppio, the indigenous leadership opportunity year program, ILOY, is hosted by RMC. How many participants go on to join the CAF from that?

[Grazia Scoppio]

I can't tell you the numbers right off the top of my head, but I can tell you two things. One, for all the indigenous programs, including ILOY, not all positions are filled. Two, there is a retention issue. Despite how well these programs may be running and how well they may be providing a really good opportunity to attract indigenous members, there's an issue of retention past the completion of the program. There are these two things.

Also, ILOY participants are not necessarily integrated with the ROTP program. It's more like they get a flavour, if you will, of the academic program. They're not integrated with the ROTP program. I want to make sure everybody in the committee is aware of that.

This is not to diminish the importance of the ILOY program. It's just to make sure we understand that these programs have limitations in both recruitment and retention.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

If the ILOY program were integrated with the ROTP, do you think there would be better retention?

[Grazia Scoppio]

I mean, it's possible, but that would present other challenges. There might be ways to better integrate that. That would be a question for both RMC and the leadership of the ILOY program to see if there is a better way to better integrate it.

The ROTP is a four-year program. There are specific academic requirements to be met, both for entry and for staying in the program. That part would pose a challenge, because there aren't the same requirements to enter the ILOY program. There might be ways to better integrate the two paths, if you will.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Dr. Scoppio, how are the youth programs you mentioned communicated to youth on reserves?

[Grazia Scoppio]

That's one of the challenges we've found. In particular, in communities of the north, there are difficulties in recruiting and in accessing the communities to even present these programs. There is also the importance of the face of the recruiters. We know this. Just as the CAF has been struggling for decades to increase the number of women in the CAF—still sitting at only about 17%—it's the same with other groups. The doors are open for other groups, such as newcomers to Canada. Permanent residents can now apply, finally, but really only a small percentage get in. It's the same with the indigenous programs. These are good programs. The intention is good.

The CAF can also recruit indigenous members for its regular service. It does not have to be only through the programs. Those are just a tool, one tool, at its disposal, but how many recruiters are indigenous? How many are going to make the journey to northern communities and so on and so forth?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Dr. Lackenbauer, why are there no plans from the CAF to set up on reserves a youth program similar to the cadets or junior rangers programs?

[P. Whitney Lackenbauer]

First of all, there are Junior Canadian Ranger programs delivered in some reserve and first nations communities in the provincial norths. When we're looking at the territorial north, there are very few reserves, as all of you are aware. I think there are bigger discussions around how far the rangers should extend. From that standpoint, I'd suggest that in communities adjacent to reserves or on reserves, there is a process whereby Junior Canadian Ranger programs can be stood up, and in many cases are. I was just in some reserve communities in the provincial norths, and we were having that very conversation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Dr. Lackenbauer, currently, we do not have enough rangers in the Arctic. How should CAF be approaching new recruits to the Canadian Rangers?

[P. Whitney Lackenbauer]

First of all, I don't accept the premise of your question, which is that we do not have enough. I would want you to explain what rangers are unable to perform in terms of mission sets. That's just a question.

That said, when we look at reinvigorating or revitalizing the rangers and opportunities for recruitment, first of all, it starts from addressing the lessening of priorities given to the Canadian Ranger patrol groups in terms of staffing levels, particularly for the regular force. We hear talk about Arctic sovereignty and security being the government's foremost priority in defence and security, yet we don't see that matched in prioritizing the resource of support.

If we want to grow the rangers in the north, that begins with making sure there are more human resources and financial services people to process their claims. It means more ranger instructors to go into communities to deliver training to the rangers, to play those mentoring roles and to be a liaison with the military. From that standpoint, I think we can build forward.

I still always ask this question: Why do we default to suggesting that the problem is the number of rangers rather than providing more opportunities and more supports to the rangers we already have? I want to return to the notion that northern Canadians, particularly indigenous people, are already serving in far greater numbers per capita than southern Canadians are. At what point does it become unfair to constantly be repeating a refrain suggesting that they're not doing enough and they need to be doing more? Perhaps the problem is something else.

It's respectfully submitted, because I think it's a very good question you're asking. The question becomes how we create more opportunities and more support for people who are in the organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Lackenbauer and Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Lapointe, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Ms. Teillet.

What does the historical experience of indigenous service tell us about how the Canadian Armed Forces should engage with indigenous members today?

[Danielle Teillet]

That's a great question.

One of the biggest challenges, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, has been that, historically, indigenous people have been fully dissuaded or prevented from enlisting or, when the times are more difficult and when casualties are higher, it's been “Now it's okay for us to recruit you”, and those barriers start to go down. A lot of those historical challenges are and have already been dealt with through more modern times. I've spoken with a couple of indigenous Afghanistan war veterans who have spoken about feeling very well looked after through their experience in the CAF.

Part of what's challenging, perhaps, is ensuring that recruiters and people understand their history. It's understanding that this is the legacy of decades of discrimination and restrictions that have prevented indigenous people, who have voluntarily wanted to enlist, from being able to. Then, of course, there is the aftermath of supporting them as veterans after they have served.

Some of the folks on the committee may have heard of Francis Pegahmagabow. He was an Anishinabe First World War veteran and a very highly decorated sniper. He won the Military Medal three times—one of only 38 people who served for the Canadian Forces to do so. He was denied his claim when he applied for his supports after as a veteran. When you look at a story like that, you see it's potentially hard to motivate people to want to sign up for this. That's in part why there were also petitions made to fight against conscription.

Understanding a lot of those things is probably the first step. As a historian, I'd say that's usually my go-to: learning our history and understanding that this is the legacy.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Kikkert, in your opening statement, you talked about indigenous operational awareness and security. Can you expand on what is meant by the point you were making?

[Peter Kikkert]

Absolutely. In the context I was speaking in, I meant that when you have rangers on the ground who can report back to other external agencies on what is going on, what the situation looks like and how the hazard they're responding to is unfolding, it creates better situational awareness for all partners involved, which is going to lead to a much more effective response.

One of the great strengths of the rangers is that they're in their communities. They're ready to respond and they're able to get eyes on the scene very quickly, whether it be a wildfire, flood or some other critical incident, and bring that awareness to their partners.

It also means that they're able to infuse their local and indigenous knowledge into the problem. They can share their knowledge about what this fire or this flood might do based on their indigenous knowledge and their local knowledge. They usually know everyone in the community. They know who can do what and when. If you need some jerry cans or you need some generators, they know who to call. They infuse all of that information into our broader emergency response systems and make it much more effective.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Scoppio, can you speak to the gap between consistent enrolment in indigenous programs and the persistently low retention rates that follow?