Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2024

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Well, I think this is an interesting question that you ought to consider.

Having said that, I have another question. I've certainly been asked by isolated first nations communities that need funding about water systems, for example, given the high cost of water systems, and it occurs to me that with housing, you need a whole bunch of infrastructure before you can build housing. You need sanitation, water and electricity.

I know there have been a lot of advances in recent years to have more sustainable housing using solar, wind, composting toilets and heavy insulation. If you look at the funding we give to first nations communities, are we adapting or considering new ways of building that use those kind of processes, rather than those from 1945, when you needed electrical poles, waterworks and sanitation systems? Would that not be, perhaps, a more efficient use of money than being stuck in 1955?

[Karen Hogan]

I think it's an excellent question. I have to admit that this looks at, perhaps, the different types of funding programs that Indigenous Services Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have available. It would probably be a great question for the two of them. They have decided the types of programs and the funding sectors that are available under housing. It would be interesting to see if they have a green one.

We really didn't look at that sort of slicing and dicing. We were looking at funding for housing, period, and really targeting new builds that were needed and major repairs that were needed where a house is almost uninhabitable. We were really trying to hit fundamental things versus really targeted things.

I might suggest that the member look at one of the reports that I believe the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is releasing tomorrow on green procurement in the federal government. There might be some good lessons learned there that could be applied to housing and funding programs for indigenous communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You have one minute left, Mr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

When we as a government dedicate funding for indigenous housing, does that money also go toward the infrastructure required to build those homes? Are those two linked together? Should they be linked together? Obviously, you can't build the houses when you don't have those other things.

[Karen Hogan]

There is money for lot servicing, which is probably the right term to use, to make sure that some of the infrastructure is there. That was not something we focused on, but there is funding available for that through these two entities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're pretty much out of time on that one, so we'll stop here.

Thank you for taking us through the first report on housing. If you'd now like to go to your five-minute statement on policing, we'll turn the floor over to you.

Do you need to take a break for some water or anything?

[Karen Hogan]

We just need to switch a few people and get a water refill.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Absolutely. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes. Just let me know when you're ready.

Colleagues, we're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're back. We'll continue on with the second report, this one on policing.

Ms. Hogan, I'll turn the floor over to you for your five-minute opening statement.

[Karen Hogan]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, which was tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2024.

I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. This area is also known as Ottawa. I express my gratitude and respect to all indigenous peoples who have contributed to shaping and safeguarding the beautiful lands they call home throughout Canada.

Joining me today are Jo Ann Schwartz, the principal who was responsible for the audit, and Mélanie Joanisse, the director who led the audit team.

The First Nations and Inuit Policing Program was created in 1991. We last audited this program in 2014, 10 years ago, and again this time, we found critical shortcomings in how it is 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 (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 has significantly increased over the last 10 years, we found that $13 million of funds earmarked for the 2022-23 fiscal year went unspent. As of October 2023, Public Safety Canada anticipated that over $45 million of program funds would be left undisbursed at the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year. This is concerning in the context of a program intended to support the safety of indigenous communities.

Public Safety Canada did not have an approach to allocate funds equitably to communities. The department told us that it relied on the provinces' or territories' readiness to fund their share of the program and on past funding received by communities to determine the amounts allocated.

Over the past five years, the RCMP has been unable to fully staff the positions funded under the community tripartite agreements. This leaves first nations and Inuit communities without the level of proactive and community-focused policing services they should receive.

Lastly, neither Public Safety Canada nor the RCMP could identify whether requirements set out in policing agreements were being met and whether the program was achieving its intended results. It is important to monitor and analyze data not only to meet the communities' security and safety needs, but also to support the self-determination of these communities.

Given that this program has not been updated since 1996 and long-standing issues persist, Public Safety Canada must work with first nations and Inuit communities, provinces and territories, and the RCMP to find a way to more effectively provide proactive and culturally appropriate policing services.

This concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you again for another opening statement.

With that, we'll get right into our first round of questions.

First up I have Mr. Melillo, who will have six minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hogan, thank you for remaining with us here for this important discussion on policing.

Of course, we know policing is an essential service. It's an important service that every Canadian and every person across the country has to rely on.

You mentioned in the report, and I believe you just mentioned in your remarks, the money that has been allocated but not disbursed, the stuff that hasn't been getting through. You said you anticipated that $45 million was going to be left on the table in the latest fiscal year. That's incredibly alarming to me considering what we're hearing from police chiefs across the country. They're saying that they don't have adequate funding and that it's not enough.

We see that playing out in my area in northwestern Ontario, unfortunately, far too often, where there just aren't enough officers on duty. It's led to tragic circumstances. It has led to deaths of people who haven't been able to have appropriate service. It wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else in the country.

Can you speak to whether the government has given any explanation for why these dollars haven't been disbursed?

[Karen Hogan]

I will highlight two areas. One is linked to Public Safety's role and one is linked to the RCMP's role.

This program is a cost-sharing program. The federal government provides 52% of the funding and the provinces or territories bring 48% to the table. What we heard is that if the federal government earmarks more funding to support the policing program, the province or territory needs to bring their fair share too for the additional funding to flow. That is part of the reason why some of the funds are going unspent.

Some of the money was received so that Public Safety could transition or grow and put more communities into the tripartite agreements or transition some from tripartite to self-administered programs. However, we saw no growth, really, in that area. Most of the additional funding was done just to meet the current existing needs and not expand the program. That would be the Public Safety side.

The second side is where the RCMP comes into play. It is not a party to this agreement, but it needs to provide policing services. What we found is that it has been unable to staff many positions. In 2023, 61 of the positions that were supposed to receive funding under this program were vacant. That's a big gap. I should note, however, that it is consistent with a larger staffing gap that the RCMP has to manage.

The interesting interplay here is that the RCMP often provides policing services provincially already. These are over and above those in indigenous communities, so we do see at times that police officers are called to do what I would say are regular provincial policing services versus the real community-focused policing service under the program.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

That's very comprehensive, and I appreciate that answer very much.

I just want to get to a few other things. Obviously, there's so much in this report.

You mentioned in the report that Public Safety Canada had not defined what equitable funding meant. Can you expand a bit on that and why it was not defined? Has there been any explanation from the department on that?

[Karen Hogan]

I will see if Jo Ann or Mélanie wants to jump in on that.

It is written right into the policy development that there needs to be an equitable allocation to communities. What does that look like? Should it be based on just the number of people who live in the community? Should there be another set of criteria, or is it that they should have services comparable to those of non-indigenous communities? Until you've defined what equitable means, how do you know how much funding is needed or how many positions are needed to deliver that kind of service?

Did I answer that comprehensively?

There we go. They have nothing to add.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I appreciate that. I think I have time for one more before I get the card from the chair.

I just want to talk about the negotiations themselves. We've seen agreements expire very recently with no plan to renew. There's a real concern that the government isn't negotiating in good faith.

It was mentioned in the report that many first nation and Inuit communities felt that the engagement did not reflect true negotiations. Can you expand on what you found there?

[Karen Hogan]

I think it's important to distinguish between the two types of agreements under this program. We looked at self-administered agreements, where indigenous communities are providing their own police services and are just receiving funding. There was much better engagement there. There was a regular need. Was it what it should be? I'm not sure, but it definitely was better than under the tripartite agreements.

For the tripartite agreements, where the RCMP provides the policing services, most of the agreements have an auto-renewal policy, and the auto-renew is after a 10- to 15-year period. That's a really long time to go without having a dialogue with communities.

The last thing I'll mention is that we heard the same feedback. It wasn't really a true negotiation or discussion because often the federal government came to the table with the province or territory already knowing how much funding would be available to a community. You can't really negotiate if you need different services or more funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Powlowski, who will have six minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

You talked about equitable funding. How does funding for indigenous communities compare to funding for non-indigenous communities? If you look at the funding per capita that goes to the police from all levels of government in indigenous communities and non-indigenous communities, can you tell me how they compare? Are they close? Are they different?

[Karen Hogan]

I am going to turn to either Jo Ann or Mélanie to add to this.

I think the one point I would make, as they gather their thoughts, is that it's about equitable access to funding. Communities are already receiving policing services by virtue of the fact that they live in a province or territory where there are policing services. This program is meant to bring community-tailored and community-focused services over and above to help rebuild the trust relationship with law enforcement. It is for a different need than just regular policing services.

I'll leave that on the table and see if Jo Ann or Mélanie wants to add to it.

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

Thank you for that.

When we looked at equitable access as part of our audit, we focused on the available funds. We didn't do a direct comparison of amounts available to indigenous versus non-indigenous communities.

As the Auditor General said, the policy for this program is explicit that equitable funding arrangements should be in place. We did ask the department how that was determined, and they hadn't defined it. Further to that, they didn't have any approach on how they were going to allocate funds equitably to the people who were recipients of the program.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

If you look at the funding that goes to policing in indigenous communities, particularly remote indigenous communities—I've worked in some of those communities—a lot of the money goes to flying the police officer and their family up or to their housing. It doesn't even end up going towards the actual act of policing—patrolling and responding to complaints. Is that not a major factor in cost, especially for remote communities?

[Karen Hogan]

We surveyed some detachments and asked them what they thought the goal was of the main service they should be providing under the indigenous and Inuit policing program versus regular policing services. I'm not going to use the right term, so I apologize to anyone in law enforcement who I'm going to offend, but there are the regular policing services, which are about enforcement and keeping good law and order, and then there is a community-based education and community-focused approach. The Inuit program is the community-based one, so it's about understanding that it's for something different than the typical approach.

If you look at all these communities, punitive or top-down enforcement is not the kind of policing indigenous communities want to receive, so it's about understanding the needs of your communities. People aren't dedicated to that and to receiving the cultural sensitivity training they need to provide those kinds of policing services.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I think you said that in 2022-23, $13 million in available funding wasn't used, and it's $45 million in the next year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that's partly because there hasn't been matching provincial funding, which is required. Can you tell us which provinces or territories have not been forthcoming in matching the funding?

[Karen Hogan]

There were many things that contributed to the funds not being spent, and that is definitely one of them. I don't know if someone has the level of detail by province.

I'm sorry; we don't know that, but Public Safety will hopefully be able to provide that answer to you.