THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of Part 4 and those elements contained in Division 35 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Margo Greenwood (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure you keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you’re not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation and is now home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood from British Columbia, and I am grateful to be here with you and see you all this morning. It has been a while since we’ve had the opportunity to be together, so I’m really happy to see you all. Also, welcome to our guests in our first meeting of the new year.
I’m Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. In the absence of the chair today, it is my honour and privilege to chair this important meeting.
Honourable senators, we meet today to continue our review of certain elements of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. We will focus today on Division 35 of Part 5 of this bill, examining the repeal of sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act.
I would like to now introduce our first witnesses today. Please welcome at the table, from the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Chief Louise Nattawappio. She is accompanied by Christina Caron, Legal Counsel; and William Moffat, Chief of Police, Naskapi Police Force. Thank you all for joining us here today.
Chief Nattawappio and Mr. Moffat will both provide opening remarks for approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Chief Nattawappio to give her opening remarks. Chief, the floor is yours.
Louise Nattawappio, Chief, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach: Waachiyaa. Louise Nattawappio nit‑isinihkaasun. Niyuw iyuuchimashkuau Kawawachikamach.
Good morning. My name is Louise, and I am Chief of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. I am honoured to be here today together with Mr. William Moffat, Director of the Naskapi Police Force, to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples as you consider the final step in an important process that led to the improvement of policing services in our community.
As I stated in my letter of December 10, 2025, the Naskapi Nation fully supports the repeal of sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act.
By way of background, the Northeastern Québec Agreement, or NEQA, is one of the first two modern treaties in Canada and was signed on January 31, 1978. Section 13 of the NEQA establishes the Naskapi Police Force, defines its jurisdiction and sets out the core framework for its funding through a tripartite agreement.
The Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act, assented to on June 14, 1984, gives effect to Canada’s commitment under Section 7 of the NEQA to adopt self-government legislation for the Naskapi. Section 195 of the act limits the territory for the provision of Naskapi policing services to Category IA-N land. Section 196 of the act sets out the process for entering into agreements for the provision of policing services on Category IA-N land.
Between 2017 and 2023, the Naskapi Nation, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec undertook negotiations to modernize Section 13 of the NEQA. While these discussions took some time to complete, they were collaborative and constructive, and they reflected a shared commitment to ensuring that the structure and funding of policing services would truly meet the needs of our community.
Those efforts resulted in Complementary Agreement No. 4 to the NEQA, which was executed by all parties in 2024 and better reflects the realities of our community. For example, the agreement expands the jurisdiction of the Naskapi Police Force beyond Category IA-N land, it clearly states components to be funded, and it provides a stronger foundation for the delivery of policing services by recognizing that funding shall take into account elements such as the ability of the Naskapi Police Force to provide professional police services that are adapted to the needs and culture of the members of our community as well as the particularities of the territory served.
We are very proud of our Naskapi Police Force and of our ability to provide our community with culturally appropriate policing services that will now have to be funded in consideration of our actual needs.
For these reasons, we welcome and support the initiative of the federal Parliament to repeal sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act to avoid inconsistencies with the new provisions of the NEQA.
Once again, thank you for inviting us to appear before this committee and for your attention to this important matter.
Tshinishkumitin.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Nattawappio. I will now invite Mr. Moffat to give his opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.
William Moffat, Chief of Police, Naskapi Police Force: Good morning, senators. It is an honour to be invited to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
My name is William Moffat, and I’ve been Police Director with the Naskapi Police Force since 2012. Sadly, this will be my last function as Police Director with the Naskapi Police Force. As of February 13, 2026, I will be stepping down and going into my next chapter, my home community of Listuguj, Quebec; I’m a Mi’kmaw from Listuguj.
I was part of the framework on the amendment of Section 13 of the Northeastern Québec Agreement — Complementary Agreement No. 4 — that meets the needs of today and tomorrow, moving from a contribution program to essential services in First Nations policing, which is self-administered.
Will the repeal of sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act affect Naskapi Police Force policing? Practically speaking, the answer is no. We will still do our day-to-day operations by keeping our community safe, with community-based policing and, most importantly, connecting with our people. Technically speaking, the repeal of sections 195 and 196 opens the door to concluding an administrative agreement with Quebec for the provision of policing services by the Naskapi Police Force on Category III land within the perimeter of Category IA-N lands. The patrol of a portion of the access road between Kawawachikamach and Schefferville, which is on Category III land, is an example of an activity that could be covered by such an agreement.
Our current policing agreement was signed in March 2025 and expires on March 31, 2029. Funding is 52% from Canada and 48% from Quebec. In total, there are 36 self-administered policing agreements in Canada. In the province of Quebec, there are 22 self-administered police departments.
Can we police ourselves as First Nations? The answer is yes.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this discussion.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moffat, for those remarks. I hope your next chapter is successful and full of happiness.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Honourable colleagues, you will each have a five-minute intervention, including the question and the answer, with a 30‑second heads-up to ensure everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator Sorensen: Good morning, everybody. I’m Karen Sorensen from Banff, Alberta, Treaty 7 Territory.
I will direct the question to anybody who wants to answer this: Can somebody explain the difference between Category III and Category IA-N lands? What issues might have arisen as a result of not having jurisdiction over those Category III lands?
[Translation]
Christina Caron, Legal Counsel, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach: I’ll use my first language, French, to discuss these complex issues.
Category IA-N is the community of Kawawachikamach. The village of Naskapi is located there. However, a road runs from the village to the municipality next door. The police force had no legal jurisdiction over some territories adjacent to the village. With these amendments, the police force will be able to access these territories. The Category III lands stem from the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the Naskapi treaty. They have treaty rights in this territory, which simply means all kinds of harvesting, hunting, fishing and trapping rights.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
[English]
If I understand correctly, the legislation that’s before us will remove discrepancies between the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act, or NCNCA, and the amended NEQA. Have there been jurisdictional issues in the past that arose from those discrepancies? How were they resolved?
[Translation]
Ms. Caron: No, because it’s quite recent. The amendments and the new chapter 13 are quite recent. The proposed amendments are aimed more at avoiding them in the future.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have a question. How does the current framework work in your community for policing? What might the impacts of the changes in the proposed bill be; what are the results of these changes?
Mr. Moffat: With the Naskapi Police Force, does it really make a change? Maybe on the political and the self-government level it does, but policing is policing. When we signed a tripartite agreement with Canada and Quebec, we’re under the Police Act in Quebec. That’s where we get our jurisdiction and our guidelines. There’s a certain section — I believe it’s 95 or 96, but I’m not sure — for the Cree and the Naskapi to have their own police forces.
The Deputy Chair: I have a follow-up question, and this is for any of you. I’m just curious about funding for policing. Has funding kept up with the needs of the community? What changes would you like to see?
Mr. Moffat: When I got there on September 3, 2012, we had a funding agreement, which is the tripartite agreement, and it was based on four police officers. With the new amendment that we’ve been working on over the last few years, as we speak, we signed off on an agreement for 16 police officers, with our salaries and our benefits comparable with the rest of Canada. It wasn’t just me; it was the leadership and legal counsel working together and being transparent. The key was communication, with links with Canada and Quebec.
When I got there, I thought, “Wow. There are only four.” As we speak, we have 16. Three years ago, we got a brand-new police station. We got two bilateral agreements, the first of which was on vehicles and equipment and the second was based on ATVs, side-by-sides, Ski-Doos — more equipment and more tactical equipment.
For me and the Naskapi Police Force, we’ve been fortunate. We’re meeting the needs of today. Since I started policing in March 1982, I just wanted to be treated as an equal. I see today that over the last 44 years things have improved quite a bit.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McCallum: Thank you and welcome to the Senate.
I wanted to go to enforcement and prosecutions. I have two bills on the floor. Regarding the enforcement by the RCMP of First Nations laws, the RCMP has refused to enforce them because there’s no oversight body to look at the bylaws and approve them. Then, the RCMP would enact them. With one of the bills, they wanted to give further jurisdiction, and it didn’t happen. What they did was put stranded regimes.
Since 1999, there have been no enforcement or prosecutions. If the RCMP can’t enforce it, the prosecutors said they’re not mandated to prosecute.
How did you handle that?
Mr. Moffat: If I look way back to 1982, actually, structured policing started in 1975 in the province of Quebec. It was a provincial First Nations police force called the Amerindian Police that started in 1975. We had agreements with the Quebec Minister of Public Security, and we had meetings with Public Safety Canada; I believe at the time it was called the Attorney General’s Office.
Things have changed. When I took training back in the early 1980s, when I was sworn in as a special constable with the Amerindian Police, I had to do it in front of the Quebec court system. We never had an issue with prosecution or enforcing what we call the CSR, the highway code. We didn’t have an issue with band bylaws. But as we speak, if I think of the Naskapi Police Force, it’s a fly-in community. Is it feasible to work with band bylaws? The answer is no. If I issue a $100 fine, it’s going to cost me $5,000 to prosecute — getting them to fly in the judge and the prosecutor. It’s not worth it.
At the end of the day, if you’re more south — and I’ll use my neighbours in Akwesasne or Kahnawake — they prosecute their bylaws. In Manitoba, they do have a provincial police force called the Manitoba First Nations Police Service. It started off as the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council Police Department more than 20 years ago. Now, I believe there are 10 or 11 communities under that Manitoba First Nations Police Service, and I believe — I could be wrong — they have a police act in Manitoba. There’s an agreement in place in their agreements.
I won’t speak on behalf of the RCMP, because all of my career has been under the Province of Quebec. I work with the Mi’kmaq, the Cree, the Algonquins and now with the Naskapi.
Senator McCallum: I’m from Manitoba, so these two bills that I have on the floor actually came from the Chiefs of Manitoba. With prosecutions, when they went to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said:
. . . it’s always been the position of the federal Prosecution Service that we don’t prosecute those bylaws. So, I take it that the RCMP, once they get that message from us, they take the position that if the Crown’s not going to prosecute, we’re [the RCMP] not going to lay charges.
And that’s where it has been. It’s actually toward drug dealers. They’ve been unable to force them to leave communities, so drug dealing was running rampant until many of the bands went to customary law and said, “This is our law.”
So it hasn’t happened.
There is a pilot project in place in Manitoba, and it’s going to be over next year, where they are laying charges and where they are prosecuting. It’s the only one of its kind.
I’ll get your address and I’ll link you with the people I work with, just to see if there’s any way we can use what you’ve done.
For the North, when you said it’s not feasible to do the North, you cannot leave it, then, without law. But the judges in Manitoba, they do fly in. There’s a court team that goes into all of them. With this pilot project, they are prosecuting now.
Mr. Moffat: It’s like I was saying the other day; the key is communication and connecting with the community. We do have drug issues no matter where we go and where I have worked, but, as I always say, the key issue is that you have to connect with your community. When I say “community,” I mean buy-in. You get political support, resources, police, Elders and youth. If you’re going to make a stand, you have to connect with the community. It’s easy for us to knock on the door and say we want this or that, but what is the game plan? If we go by the game plan, it’s a lot easier. When you get community support to do this — when a community gets involved, it’s a lot easier to prosecute and to create your bylaws. The community will speak.
As a police leader, it’s easy for me to say what I want, but I want to hear a consensus from the community, the leadership, the resources and the people with addictions — you name it. If you could sell it, then on the issue of drugs, we’re not going to win the war, but we’re going to win a few battles.
If the community makes a stand — I’ve been reading across the country that communities are making a stand: “This is our community. Enough is enough.” If you go to my Facebook page, the dealers aren’t the problem; it’s the addictions. How do we deal with addictions? If I could be sober, the Chief could be sober and Christina could be sober, there’s no longer a drug dealer. So how do we deal with addictions? It’s easy to kick down a door. If we stop one drug dealer, a week later, it’s two more.
We’re not going to win the war, but we’ll win the battles. But if we connect police, leadership, legal, the Elders and youth, we have a fighting chance to move forward.
It’s easy to blame our brothers — the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Quebec — but we have to connect with our communities. This is what I’ve been promoting during my 44-year career. I still promote it. In another week, I’ll be the chief of police in my home community. They have the same issue of drugs. I’m going to set up a community meeting. We need to talk.
It’s easy to blame: “Well, it’s Billy Moffat. It’s the chief.” We’re always pointing fingers, but what is the community solution? If you get the buy-in from the community, it’s a win‑win. They want to hear the police are doing this. At one time, the drug dealers there — I’ll make the roadway, but today it’s different. Is it a hanging bridge? Is it a causeway? I need your help. Police right across the country — the RCMP, the OPP, the Sûreté, any big police department — we need support from the community. We need your help.
It’s not that easy. We have to deal with calls with family violence, addictions and mental health. I do understand your concern, but if you can get leadership, start talking. How do we connect within our communities and start communicating? What’s the game plan? I know I’m not going to win the war, but we’re going to win the internal battles in our communities, and we could stand proud. Every drug dealer and every loss we have in our community with overdoses, we feel it. I feel it as chief of police. Leadership feels it. We all feel it. We go back to our own communities. We’re certain to point fingers. Sometimes, we have to point fingers — what are we going to do?
What’s sad is that, over the years, I would see an overdose or some tragedy based on drugs, and nobody would ever mention who the drug dealer was — it’s over there — but they’ll blame the police, the leadership, the families and friends, never the drug dealer.
My answer is communication. Sit down with the Manitoba government, sit down with Canada and explain the situation as to what’s going on. We need help. If we don’t get the help, there will be more tragedies right across the country, especially in Manitoba. I hope I answered your question.
Senator McCallum: I just want to make a point. The Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs did do a study on this, and they are very concerned. The communities in Manitoba are working together. That is the thing, but when they wanted to oust the drug dealer, the RCMP were right there and said they had no authority to do that. That’s why they’re starting to take stuff into their own hands.
Thank you for that.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for coming in and providing your testimony and evidence here today.
I just want to follow up on some of your statements. Chief, you mentioned that you’re in favour of the repeal of sections 195 and 196. You mentioned doing so will provide more professional policing services that meet the needs and culture. In that regard, Chief, you mentioned appropriate police services.
Mr. Moffat, you talked about community-based policing, and it stems from the last two questions with respect to relationships. That’s quite a difference between the number of officers, as you mentioned. I can only imagine the extent of negotiations that have evolved. Mr. Moffat, you mentioned equality — just being treated equally — as counterparts in police services.
Chief and Mr. Moffat, could you comment on the provision of professional police services that meet the needs and culture of your communities? What, essentially, is community-based policing?
Maybe we can start with you first, Chief Nattawappio, and then I will move over to you, Mr. Moffat.
Ms. Nattawappio: I asked Billy about that this morning — what they mean by “culturally adapting.” He’s Mi’kmaw and he speaks English, but our community is Naskapi and English, so they are different languages. When he has to speak with the community, he always needs a Naskapi translator. The activities that they do in the community, I will have him speak about that. He does a lot.
Mr. Moffat: Speaking of “culturally appropriate,” I’m a Mi’kmaw from Listuguj, and no matter if I work with the Cree, the Algonquins, the Naskapi, I always talk with the Elders: “What is the history of the community? What are the issues of the community? What are your traditions? What are the games?” I get to talk.
Then I get to speak with the youth because I like training in the gym. I like playing basketball and that. I get to talk with them: “What do you think about police and this and that?” They say they just want the police to understand our values, our traditions, our customs. What does the caribou mean? What does the goose mean? It’s like Chief Louise was saying earlier: Anywhere I talk, I have my sergeant and my deputy. He speaks Naskapi, so everything I say in English gets translated into Naskapi. When I go to a community, I should be talking in their first language. That’s why I have a translator. Anything that’s written in English, it gets translated into syllabics so the community understands.
We participate in every community function. Just this past week, I wasn’t there, but they had the Naskapi Cultural Week. My police participated in sewing, beading and playing games with the community.
When it comes to community-based policing, it’s pretty similar. It’s connecting with the community; it’s understanding their issues. Just because I wear a uniform, it doesn’t mean I’m better than them. When I say “I,” our department, we’re there to learn. I’m a Mi’kmaw. There are some Mohawks and some Innu and a Cree who works up North. We share our teachings and traditions. Sometimes this is a little similar, or this word is a little similar. One word means “good”; one word means “bad,” but, in the end, we connect, we talk, we participate in every community meeting.
We have an AGM. We have an Elders gathering. We are there. Last year, we had an Elders’ gathering for the Côte-Nord, the North Shore. The police were there; I myself was there. We talked about addictions. We talked about sharing stories. At one point, I was even sweeping the floor to make people happy. We participate and network. That’s what community-based policing is — connecting with the community.
Sometimes we’re given something. These are the rules; this is what I want to do. But I understand the addictions in the community. Well, maybe I should do a community survey. Do we have a drug issue in the community? The answer is yes. Actually, this past summer, I did 200 surveys. Out of 200, about 175 said we have a drug issue in the community. We have an alcohol issue. Then I went a little further. “Do you consume?” “Yes, we consume.” “What do you think?” Boom, boom. There are approximately 220 homes. Of those 220 homes, I’m looking at 200 homes that have a problem with addiction, with drugs or alcohol. That’s reaching out.
So what are the solutions? We have a worker and a counsellor. Do you know who they are? We do, but who? What’s needed in our community? We need a detox centre; we need a rehab centre; we need a treatment centre. It didn’t come from me. It came from the community. From there, I would have a community meeting and discuss: These are the findings. We need more help from the government, and especially with the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, we need more help from the Province of Quebec. That’s what community-based policing as First Nations is.
I’ve seen addictions. When I started policing, alcohol was known as “fire water,” but this drug issue and the alcohol issue, I call it a monster. It’s destroying our people day in and day out. Every day, I open an article, and there’s an overdose, a violent crime. But we have to connect.
Every nation, or 56 communities in the province of Quebec, is unique in a certain way. I have three Mi’kmaq brothers and sisters. Our dialect is a little different, and our traditions and customs are a little different. It’s the same thing with First Nations policing. It’s the same thing connecting. I’m a Mi’kmaw from Listuguj. My dialect is different, but when I reach out, I don’t go as a leader; I go as a brother. “This is what I want. This is what I want to hear. Whom should I talk to? Who are the key stakeholders in the community? Which family should I talk to on the traditions? Which family should I talk to about the language? Whom should I talk to about hunting?” You get that information.
This is what First Nations policing is about: It’s connecting with our communities and understanding our communities.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and welcome to all of you. Thank you, Mr. Moffat. Your comments make me think of the history of policing, which is, of course, citizens on patrol, and you speak very clearly about that.
I want to ask you about something you mentioned earlier. You talked about the fly-in courts. I was in Pikangikum in the fall. One of the things the community there was talking about was the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs just for one day when the fly-in court happens and what the community could be using those resources for if they had access to deciding in the way that you were talking about what those resources could be used for.
Have you looked at a similar process in your community as to, instead of having a fly-in court, what you could be using the resources currently being applied for that to do?
Mr. Moffat: As we speak, the itinerary court comes three times a year. The years prior, it was four times a year. This is my personal opinion: It doesn’t work. The process gets delayed, delayed, delayed, and charges get dropped or under probation, six months, suspended sentence. I hate to say it, but it’s failing, even the hundreds of thousands we spend.
I’ve been there since September 3, 2012. I haven’t testified yet on any file. Maybe we had one case in 14 years that we went to testify on. And it seems like the system is just a delay, a delay, a delay. That’s where I get frustrated. The Quebec court system does not work in this fly-in community. Why? I asked this question the first year I got there. I called it a kangaroo court and I got slapped for it. I should have respect for the Quebec court system. The reason why I said that back in 2012 was a young man was intoxicated. He was supposed to abstain from alcohol. He signed an agreement in front of the judge, the Crown prosecutor and the defence. Bottom line, he’s a drunk. That’s why I called it a kangaroo court, but I was called into the chambers; somebody heard me. “Mr. Moffat, that language will never be taken.” And I was just talking the truth.
There is crime. Could it be better? The answer is yes. Maybe we need to set up our own justice building and have a judge come in probably every six weeks. That would cut costs instead of being tied in for two or three days with 100 files. They would cut it down maybe to 10 or 12 files, specifically. In the police sense, there would be more justice. For domestic violence, it’s not going to be a slap on the wrist; it’s going to be incarceration. The numbers are very high in the community where I work. One in six or one in seven calls are domestic violence. Sometimes the victims get discouraged by the system: “It’s taking too long. It’s two years.” When I put myself in their shoes, the system is failing. Could it be corrected? Probably. In the political sense, our leaders — not just in Kawawachikamach, but the 56 communities — need to take a stand. We need a better court system. Where I work, it’s failing. I hate to say it.
This has been my personal opinion for the last 12 years — 14 years, time flies. In the end, I am concerned. Could the resources be better used? Probably. Maybe we need more probation officers in the community who can explain how the system works. Maybe we need someone from the justice system to come and explain how the system works.
On my end, I use Facebook. I can explain what assault is, what a subpoena is and what a summons is. Maybe someone from the Naskapi Nation, he or she could take that lead. Would it reduce crime? Probably not, unless we deal with the addiction issue. For resources, I would have to think about it and get back to you if you don’t mind.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to each of you for being with us in person. It really adds to the conversation. My question is to the Chief and the police chief, and it comes from an experience that a number of us had a number of years ago when we went to a fly-in community in the northwest Arctic and spent time with leaders and Elders in that community. They talked to us about the kind of scenario that Senator McCallum described where they wanted to take action, and, in fact, it was the RCMP telling them that they couldn’t take action in terms of dealing with the drugs coming in and the degree of inspection of even luggage.
I clearly remember that one of the leaders said, “We know who the dealers are; they’re our people. They didn’t come from outside. They’re doing this to our own people, and we don’t have a way of stopping this.” So my question is whether that’s a similar experience in your communities. You know who the dealers are. They are members of the community for the most part. How do you respond to that reality if, indeed, that is the case?
Ms. Nattawappio: Every time a community member notices they’re selling in this house, they sometimes reach out to me, and I reach out to the police right away. It’s sometimes the drug users who report the drug dealers when that drug is more dangerous than they expect. In our community, speed is the most used. Once there was another drug that came in — they call it Molly — and the speed users reported that drug dealer, and we reported it to the police, and they took action.
Mr. Moffat: One thing I noticed with the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach is a couple of years ago we were hitting drug dealers almost every month. As we speak, there is a neighbouring community 12 kilometres south patrolled by the Sûreté du Québec. Our known drug dealers are moving away from the community, and they’re going 12 kilometres south so we have no jurisdiction. Basically, we have jurisdiction on Category IA-N lands. We’re there, and this is the Province of Quebec.
How it works — I explained it last year at the Elders’ gathering — is as a police director and my department, we get the information; we apply for the warrant; we hit right away. It makes it a lot easier on my part, but our provincial counterparts down south, we’re giving them information, “This is what’s going on with this drug dealer, and this is where they store stuff.” With the Sûreté du Québec — it’s probably the same with the OPP or the RCMP — the local detachment has to call the district office for approval. It goes from the district office to Parthenais in Quebec. Once it’s approved there, it comes from the head office to the district office, and then it goes back to the local detachment. By the time they’re done, it’s two weeks later. They execute the warrant, and there is nothing. They always compare, “Billy, as chief of police, you guys get it right away.” I say, “My big wheel goes through me. I authorize it.” With the Sûreté du Québec or the RCMP or the provincial police, it goes from detachment to district to headquarters, and then it goes back the same way. By the time you hit on this warrant, there are no drugs.
Senator McPhedran: Chief, if I may, my question was a little bit different. It was about community and, for lack of a better term, community justice. The drug dealers themselves may move 12 kilometres, but what about their families? They’re members of your own community, and not necessarily the entire family is engaged. How do community members deal with the fact that members of their own community are damaging and killing members of the community? How is that handled? Police intervention is one thing. Community intervention is not necessarily the same. That’s really more where I’m trying to go with this.
Mr. Moffat: I see it. I get frustrated by it because everybody knows who sells, and everybody knows what family sells. It’s not just Kawawachikamach; it’s in most communities. There is a blind eye turned to it. Why? I don’t get it. If I had the answer, I think I would sit around this table. I have community forums that discuss issues on drug dealers, on addiction, on what we can do as a community. I always say, “We know who sells. Give us a helping hand.” For some reason, I can’t get that information out of them. There could be a debt in the family. They won’t point out that drug dealer.
Sometimes I just scratch my head: When is enough enough? Does it happen when it affects your family? It seems like nobody cares until it affects their family. Even when it affects their family, they’ll never say, “Who is the drug dealer?” Instead, they’ll be blaming the police, blaming leadership, blaming the resources, saying we are not doing anything, but we are. We need their help.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Thank you for being here. I listen with great interest because whatever I’m hearing, I know is happening in my territory of Nunavut and the same with families protecting some of their family members. I’m more interested in your police force. Are there Indigenous people working on your police force? Is it mainly people from outside? How do you recruit people to be on your police force that are from the community or from the Indigenous community? I think that makes a difference in your community policing and what you do. I had some questions about what difference you see in a community that is policed by their own people versus from somewhere else. I know Senator Prosper asked a similar question along those lines. Thank you.
Mr. Moffat: As we speak, including myself, there are 13 First Nations members. There are five from the Naskapi Nation, local kids. I have a Cree, two Mohawks, three Mi’kmaqs, including myself, one Innu, and I have two non-natives, and one of the non-natives is from Algiers. He dresses pretty well. Recruitment-wise, I have been very fortunate. When I have an opening, I’m able to recruit. If you play baseball or hockey, I’m like one of those player coaches. It’s easy for me to recruit. Any outsider I recruit, he or she gets hired by the provincial counterparts, the Sûreté du Québec or Montreal police or Quebec police or even the RCMP.
I use them, and they use the department. They get their experience. I’ve been very fortunate. I’ve always been able to recruit other First Nations officers into the North as a fly-in community. Why? Maybe it’s my personality; I don’t know. For some reason, I’m able to attract. I’m leaving on the 13th with the Naskapi Police Force, and a week later I’ll be working for the Listuguj Police Department as the chief of police. I have four or five spots, and I have four or five First Nations applying for work. I’m not bragging. It’s just I’ve been fortunate. I don’t know; luck is on my side because I’m able to work with the recruits. I’m able to work with experienced staff. I’m not there to dictate. No matter where I worked, I understand the issues. I’ve just been fortunate.
Do I have a system? Usually, they give me a call, ask a few questions. I’ll ask around, “How is this officer, he or she?” “Billy, he’s good, or she’s good. They’re frustrated with politics.” I’ve been very fortunate, able to fill in all the gaps. And mind you, the pay is pretty good up North. It’s comparable to the OPP.
The Deputy Chair: We have time for one final question.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. When we look at the funding part of your agreement — that you will have resources to fulfill your obligation under applicable laws and the ability to provide professional police services adapted to the specific needs and culture and the particularities of the territories served — will this agreement allow you to go further toward transformational change, including community wellness and self-determination of the individual and the collective?
Mr. Moffat: When I started in 2012, our annual budget was $400,000. As we speak, we’re at $4.2 million, going up to $4.6 million in the new fiscal year. Any project or any initiative I took was covered by the agreement. There were no questions through Public Safety Canada or the Minister of Public Security of Quebec, because everything I do is for the well-being of the community. The community forums, the drug walks are organized by the Naskapi police department. When we have a bead night, I’ll buy beads, I’ll buy drinks. We have youth. We have Elders come in doing beadwork, making medallions, making pins, making earrings. But every initiative, even with our annual audits, I never get questioned. The reason is because it’s for the well-being of the community. I just bought some hockey hoodies for the kids. I said, “Well, if you want to put ‘Nomads’ on the front, could you put ‘Say No to Drugs’ on the back?” That’s covered.
Every initiative I do is for the youth and the community. It’s based on the well-being of the community. I’m not scared to go in front of here and talk about addictions, the issues in the community. My job as a community leader is to say we have an issue. How do we deal with it? I know how to deal with it, but I want to hear the input from you. And once you get the buy-in, it’s a lot easier.
I was never questioned on my annual audit through Public Safety Canada or the Minister of Public Security how I spent my dollars. I’ll invest $10,000 in a shelter for this; I’ll invest $8,000 for a drug walk. For some reason, I was never questioned. It seems like everything I do, it works because I’m very transparent. I always advise our funding people, Canada and Quebec, that this is what I plan to do. When I do my annual report, there is a work plan for the next year of what I plan to do. I was never questioned on it, but we do have enough dollars. If I don’t spend these extra dollars, I will have a surplus, and the surplus goes back to Quebec and it goes back to Canada.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator.
I just want to check in with Senator Karetak-Lindell. Do you have a follow-up question for the witness?
Senator Karetak-Lindell: No, I didn’t, but I do want to comment. You are indeed very fortunate to have a lot of Indigenous people working on your force, because I believe that makes a big difference in a community. If we could all have that same opportunity, I think life in communities would be different.
Mr. Moffat: I forgot to add, as a police director over the years for the last 28 years, I would hire students on summer projects. Then you kind of witness whether he or she has it. And over the years, just thinking about it, three quarters of the students that worked for me on the summer projects, either through high school or university, are police officers. As we speak, with the Naskapi police department, we have three out of four. So it seems to work. It kind of works for me.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Good to hear.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator. I’m being reminded to ask this question, and this will be the final question. Can you elaborate a bit on policing as an essential service? I know you mentioned it in a couple of your remarks. What that looks like in your community?
Mr. Moffat: If we go back to 1975 with the structure of the Amerindian Police when it was in all 56 communities in the province of Quebec, when we negotiated in good faith, we were there with the actual numbers, and when we sat around this table, we were always looked down upon, no matter how much paperwork or how much data we had. As a patrolman, policing was policing. We do this and this. When I climbed up the stages and went through the Barriere Lake police back in the early 2000s to be their chief, when I sat at the table, they kind of looked down at me as second-tier policing: “Who are you to tell us what we want?” There were times when we sat in good-faith negotiations; we sat and sat. And on March 31st, at the end of the fiscal year at 3 o’clock, we’d have 10 minutes to sign the agreement. If you don’t sign off, there is no funding. We were forced into these agreements. There were times you’d talk to Canada or Quebec when they’d say, “Billy, this is going good. Your paperwork is this; we’re going to take care of it. Good.” And sure enough, the dollars didn’t change. Things haven’t changed since 2018, when the freeze was over in First Nations policing.
Then, when we negotiated, you got to see each other now eye to eye. When I sat around the table with Canada and Quebec, they had legal advisers. When I sat around the table, it was myself, Chief, maybe the director general. We couldn’t have legal advice around the table helping us. So when we sat around the table, they would have a lawyer for a treaty, a lawyer for the Naskapi Cree and then a lawyer for the Indian Act. There we sat in good faith, negotiating: “This is what we want for our community.”
But as of today, I see great improvements. I know when I started, we had second-hand vehicles and equipment. When I finished training, it took a year before I got my revolver because we weren’t trusted. We had to get sworn in under a Quebec judge as special constables. Today, under the Police Act, I have the authority to swear in my officers, which is a change. When I sit around the table with Public Safety Canada and the Quebec Minister of Public Security, it’s becoming an equal playing field. With the contribution agreement, if one day Public Safety Canada or the minister says, “We’re going to stop funding,” policing ends, but as an essential service, we’re guaranteed funding. Mind you, we still have to do the paperwork.
When I sit in front of the government, now we’re seeing eye to eye. Back in the early years, it was more of a “take it or leave it” approach. I used to hate that. No matter what we did — we answered the same calls like our counterparts at the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the OPP — we had higher numbers on addictions, incarcerations, domestic violence. Anything with statistics, we were higher. They did studies on First Nations policing across Canada, and we exceeded all studies with the limited dollars we got.
Since 2018 — so for the last eight years — I’ve seen improvements. Like I said, when I arrived in the Naskapi territory of Kawawachikamach, our annual budget was $400,000 for four police officers. As we speak, we’re roughly at $4.2 million, going up to $4.6 million, with 16 officers. That will start on April 1. It is a great improvement.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that.
Honourable colleagues, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank the witnesses again for being here with us today. Thank you for your words.
I would like to now introduce our second panel of one witness. Please welcome to the table, from Public Safety Canada, Adrian Walraven, Director General of Indigenous Affairs.
Mr. Walraven will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Mr. Walraven to give his opening remarks. Mr. Walraven, the floor is yours.
Adrian Walraven, Director General, Indigenous Affairs, Public Safety Canada: Good day. Mino gigizheb. As mentioned, I am Adrian Walraven. I’m Director General of Indigenous Affairs at Public Safety Canada. Under my responsibility, I have the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, or FNIPP, as well as ongoing engagement about public safety issues with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities across Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting us to this meeting today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation. I’m pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss Division 34 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. This division concerns the proposed amendments to repeal sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act.
Depending on the time available, I would also be happy to discuss Public Safety Canada’s work with First Nations and Inuit communities.
I want to start by offering my condolences to the members of the Mistissini community and the Cree Nation for the shooting that took place last week.
[English]
I also want to offer my sympathies to the Sipekne’katik and Neqotkuk First Nations in Atlantic Canada for the tragic deaths that took place in their communities last month.
Let us turn to the main topic of this session, which is proposed amendments to the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act pertaining to policing.
Alongside our colleagues at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Public Safety Canada has worked to ensure the Northeastern Québec Agreement continues to meet the public safety needs of the Naskapi. This includes modifying the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act to match the updated Northeastern Québec Agreement around policing jurisdiction.
These changes to the legislation better reflect the modern realities and needs of the Naskapi police service. We remain committed to moving forward together in a way that respects the rights and interests of the Naskapi Nation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight the work that my department is undertaking to support public safety in First Nations and Inuit communities more broadly.
Informed by the Auditor General’s March 2024 audit report on the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, we are working actively with First Nations and Inuit partners and with provinces and territories to modernize cost-shared federal programming with a priority focus on better supporting First Nations and Inuit‑led police services.
In this context — and I think you heard a bit about the impact of this with our previous panel — Budgets 2021 and 2024 have significantly increased available federal funding for First Nations and Inuit police services, and we are making steady progress in our efforts to best position FNIPP to support improved public safety outcomes in the communities we aim to serve.
[Translation]
While we have made significant progress, we acknowledge that much more needs to be done.
Lastly, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak today. I’m ready to answer any of your questions today, as time permits.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walraven. We will now proceed with questions from the senators.
Honourable colleagues, you will each have a five-minute intervention, including the question and the answer, with a 30‑second heads-up to ensure that everyone gets a chance to ask at least one question.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for being with us in person today, Mr. Walraven. I’m going to return to the line of questioning from the previous witnesses. I know you were here to hear that.
Please help me understand what the barriers are — and the second part of the question is whether they can be taken down — that are stopping communities, particularly fly-in communities, from applying a level of security that is actually similar to when any of us try to get on an airplane, where everything is searched? In a fly-in community, that’s how the drugs get in.
I go back to the experience that a number of us had when we were in the northwest Arctic with a fly-in community. We sat with the RCMP officers, the Elders and community leaders and were told that it was impossible to search all of the incoming luggage. It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is there anything you can do to shed light on what seems to be such an obvious way of responding efficiently to incoming drugs? I’d be really grateful for that.
Mr. Walraven: Thank you, senator.
First off, I would suggest I could probably follow up with more precise answers to your questions today in writing.
In direct response, I think our law enforcement partners are hoping to see more precision and legal clarity in some of the laws that allow them to do their jobs. When I spoke with representatives of law enforcement about the issue that you’re raising, they asked for more precision about whether they are able to look at incoming mail packages. They would like more explicit authority to do that under law. If they are going to be searching bags, as you are describing, they would like more explicit authority to do that under law. I understand it is something we are looking at as a government to make those types of legislative amendments in order to make it more precise and effective for our law enforcement partners.
This question falls outside of my direct area of responsibility, so I would like to follow up with more precise details after our time today.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Mr. Walraven, for being with us. I believe you were here during the previous panel, and my line of questions to those witnesses was around their positions with respect to supporting the repeal of sections 195 and 196 and the related Agreement No. 4, which seemed to modernize things from an agreement that had existed and been outdated for quite some time.
Can you describe to me what your department’s position is on communities that are struggling to provide enhanced policing services within their respective communities? We heard quite a bit of evidence on the nature of discussions or maybe lack of discussions — I think the way Mr. Moffat described it was a take-it-or-leave-it approach to policing services — unique issues that exist with respect to Indigenous communities given the abundance of social issues that exist. There was further mention about policing as an essential service related to that, and, obviously, the Chief also talked about community-based policing.
Can you describe what your department’s approach is on policing as an essential service and the need to address some of these issues? You did mention the two recent deaths within Mi’kma’ki, within the Sipekne’katik community and the Tobique community in New Brunswick. There has been a press release from the Chiefs of the Atlantic regarding that and the need for discussion and dialogue. I’m just curious if you could maybe highlight your department’s approach on that.
Mr. Walraven: Thank you very much, senator, for that important question.
In responding, I’ll try to break out what we are doing by the initiatives we fund. Under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program and the First Nations and Inuit policing infrastructure program, we are prioritizing, as I think you heard from Mr. Moffat, a steadfast effort to make sure that we are properly funding existing First Nations and Inuit police services across the country. I think you heard a little bit in the earlier session that through additional federal resources that Budget 2021 and Budget 2024 have brought forward, we are seeing significant increases in funding that are providing more direct equity with other police services, provincial or the RCMP. Under FNIPP, that is our main focus of effort and where we are increasingly prioritizing funding.
Under FNIPP, we also support the RCMP or other police services — for example, I believe the Cape Breton Regional Police Service serves Eskasoni in your area in Mi’kma’ki territory — to have an enhanced level of policing beyond what they would otherwise have if they were just being provided by provincial police services.
One of the innovative areas we are also working in, led by efforts from the Province of Manitoba, for example, is we are also complementing police officer presence with First Nations safety officers who, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan, under provincial law, have a defined role in terms of being agents of public safety and bylaw enforcement. That is proving to be an effective way, going to the previous senator’s question, especially in remote communities. Where you may not see a policing presence on a daily basis, having safety officers is showing to be a good complement to overall policing strategies.
I would also add, as the last thing I would say to your question, Senator Prosper, Public Safety also has several other Indigenous-focused programming, including the Aboriginal Community Safety Planning Initiative, and we try to mobilize and orient those programs also to the types of public safety priorities we hear through ongoing engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you and welcome. I think you heard my question to the previous panel.
I’m not understanding what is happening here, the difference in how you deal with the RCMP only and this one being a tripartite agreement with the province. There is a difference in how they are able to perform their duties. As I said, with the RCMP, they will not enforce bylaws, and the prosecutions will not, but it seems that it’s different with Naskapi policing. Is it unique in Canada?
I just wanted to comment about the barriers to the level of security at airports. I was on that trip with Senator McPhedran. I used to go up North every week, and they would search us. They would search the suitcases based on the Chiefs and councils, because it’s provincial. You’re landing on provincial land before you get to federal land to go to the reserves, but they were able to do it.
I know about the letters. It fell off the Order Paper and hasn’t been brought up yet. Manitoba was supporting that letters be searched because that’s how drugs are getting in now.
Is it unique? If it is and it’s working, then why isn’t Canada working to have the police — because it’s an amendment that they would do. This Liberal government refuses to do it. If it’s working, then why are you holding a huge group hostage and not doing anything about it or supporting work toward amending the RCMP Act and the prosecutions act? Do you believe doing that would correct the situation?
Mr. Walraven: Senator, I think there are two things that I heard in your question. I’ll unpack the first, and if I’m correct, we can move on to the second, which I think is bylaw enforcement and how we are working on that.
To your first question, as Police Chief Moffat mentioned, there are 36 — soon to be 37, with the Mohawks of Tyendinaga coming online as soon as they can mobilize a police chief and begin operations — First Nations and Inuit police services across Canada. The Naskapi Police Force is one of them. Those services are the police of jurisdiction in the communities they serve.
With respect to the RCMP, when they are, as is the case in Manitoba, serving as the police in a First Nations community, they are acting under contract as the police service for the province. What the FNIPP does in those circumstances is augment the number of officers in what’s called Community Tripartite Agreements, and you get an additional head count of RCMP officers above and beyond what you would otherwise have if you just had the baseline for the provincial police. That is the difference, if I’m understanding your question, between what the Naskapi Police Force is and how we support it under FNIPP, and what you may hear in terms of RCMP policing being supported under FNIPP. Does that answer the first part of your question, senator?
Senator McCallum: It does. I will get back to you with your card. I have other questions.
Mr. Walraven: I will be happy to answer them. When it comes to the broader question of First Nations law and bylaw enforcement, I will say this is something that is an active conversation with every First Nations leader I encounter. It was the main topic of conversation when the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, Special Chiefs Assembly happened in December. There was a lot of concern that we don’t have it right in terms of explaining to law enforcement how they will see, if enforcement action is taken, prosecution action being taken.
It depends a little bit on region and community. As I think you know, senator, we have the pilot program in Manto Sipi, which has evolved to provide a high degree of local coherence in terms of how First Nations bylaws can be enforced by the RCMP and then prosecuted duly after. I’m also aware of initiatives in other jurisdictions where there is either a provincial law or a federal prosecution effort, and as long as it’s synchronized with the configuration of a band bylaw, police get the clarity of understanding that if they take action, there is an actual next step to the prosecution structure.
This conversation is taking place in somewhat of an asymmetrical form because, in different places, conversations are at different levels of maturity. What I can confirm is that everybody is concerned about this, and we are working closely with our Department of Justice colleagues, with our provincial and territorial colleagues and with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders to have this conversation about how we can have more structure and clarity about how this can all work together.
Senator McCallum: Someone here asked if policing was an essential service, and I didn’t get a clear idea of whether it was essential. And if it was essential, why is it essential? What is the importance of making it essential, and what are the powers that come with that?
Mr. Walraven: There are three parts I’ll try to cover in the answer to that question, senator. It was asked before, and I apologize. I didn’t answer it directly.
The most important thing —
Senator McCallum: It was with the previous witnesses.
Mr. Walraven: Maybe it was. Because I was here, maybe I am mixing it up too.
The most important thing I hear from police chiefs, like the previous speaker, and a lot of First Nations leaders is we need to make sure that a First Nations- or Inuit-led police service is properly funded in order to do the essential work that they do. As you heard, we’ve been taking active measures in the last few years to make sure there is a higher degree of federal cost-shared funding available to properly and equitably fund First Nations and Inuit police services. We’ve seen a significant impact on the ground, and there is still more to do, but we have moved the yardstick forward quite a bit.
Then, it’s also how you negotiate. To Senator Prosper’s previous question, you may hear, as I think was mentioned, years ago, federal or provincial officials would come to a First Nations-led police service and say, “Here is your funding. Please sign the agreement.” We now take — informed by a recent court direction, especially — dedicated measures to make sure we are negotiating funding agreements and that we are sitting at a table well before a funding agreement expires so that we are talking about what the police service thinks they need to do the essential work that they are doing, that we are discussing with our provincial partners how we can look at responding to those needs and that we make sure that there is sufficiency and predictability built into an ongoing financial relationship so that we don’t arrive at the eleventh hour with a concern or a crisis on the First Nations police services’ side.
Everything is an iterative process, but we are making significant progress in how we are trying to negotiate proper funding agreements for First Nations and Inuit police services.
Senator McCallum: Is it an essential service, yes or no?
Mr. Walraven: It is an essential service, and the third part of what I meant to say is that something the federal government continues to look at and discuss is whether there is a future role for federal legislation that could support this. This is a key part of ongoing First Nations advocacy, and it’s something that we are discussing with the Minister of Public Safety. As he said publicly, our first-order priority is ensuring we have enough money to properly fund the services, and that is something that we need to make sure that we have so that if there is ever legislation, there is sufficient financial backing to properly implement what the legislation would codify.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you for being here. I want to pick up on some of the comments that Senator McCallum had, except I would like to go into more detail. One of the realities is that it was the court challenges you mentioned that really alleged inadequate funding for police services, and your work has been informed by those measures. I would like to know what the cost is, what Public Safety puts out, in terms of these resources in fighting such court challenges, assisting communities in their negotiations and providing those services. How many Public Safety Canada employees actually visit those communities to engage in negotiations and discussions with the communities?
Mr. Walraven: Senator, I’ll probably need to provide a written answer to those specific questions. In general, to provide a verbal response, I have a significant number of staff on my team who are dedicated to improving the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program and the way we relate and work with our provincial and First Nations and Inuit partners. I have regional staff who, on a day-to-day basis, make sure they’re accessible for First Nations police services in the administration of their funding agreements.
I also have folks who are very well versed and have been working with the Parliamentary Budget Officer as part of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs study to make sure we have a sense of what the landscape looks like in terms of current funding and what types of needs people have at the negotiation table. We are working diligently to make sure that there is no forward basis for litigating, that we have an ability to negotiate sufficient and predictable funding arrangements with the First Nations and Inuit police services that we have. There is still litigation that’s working its way through the courts, but my job is to try to make sure that we don’t need to resort to that, that we can manage things through effective, strong working relationships with our funding partners.
Senator Pate: In light of that, I would be interested in what negotiations are happening within Public Safety and other groups to engage in similar practices. I’m thinking, for instance, of corrections and others where so much of the forward movement only comes after litigation and after challenges to practices and whether those kinds of discussions are happening to try to have the cost savings up front, as you were mentioning, instead of feeding litigation and then having to fight it.
Mr. Walraven: To provide a quick response to what I think you’re asking, senator, Government of Canada officials who are working with our Indigenous partners are committed to doing so in a respectful, honourable and dedicated way.
Through that ethos, we are trying as much as possible to maintain good relations, have honest conversations about funding requests and available financial capacity and navigate those conversations where, as much as possible, we try and mitigate the need to resolve things before the courts.
Senator Pate: Thank you. I look forward to that detailed response.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Welcome, and thank you for your remarks.
[English]
I heard you say that one of the goals was building equity with other police forces. I have a question about how funding First Nations police forces differs from funding municipal police forces. Municipal police services set their budgets with a board.
Then, how far apart are the funding requests from First Nations policing and what is actually given out by the federal government? Is there a huge gap? Are you aware of the gap between the request and the actual payout?
Mr. Walraven: Senator, one of the first things we try to do when we are in tripartite negotiations with a province or territory — and all of the First Nations and Inuit police services operate under provincial enabling legislation and are regulated by the provinces, and we do everything on a tripartite basis as a result — is find a way of establishing an evidence-based barometer of equity. In Quebec and Ontario, there are established methodologies that both of these provinces use for their provincial police services or that structure for municipal police services, and those provide a bit of that barometer.
In RCMP jurisdictions where the RCMP is under contract to the province, we also have approaches that we bring to negotiation tables, often at the request of the province that’s responsible. We try to find ways we can say at the table that if this is your point of comparison with a municipal police service, with the RCMP or with whatever your peer comparison group is, we need to have those points of reference so that we can then navigate good-faith negotiations with something in front of us as a road map of what we think quantified equity looks like.
That is taking place in different ways, but it is taking place across all of the funding agreement negotiation tables that we have for the 36 First Nations and Inuit police services.
Senator Clement: And the gap in terms of what’s being requested and what’s actually being funded?
Mr. Walraven: I will just say we are significantly closing that gap. It’s a question where if you ask a First Nations or Inuit police service, I’m sure they have needs that they think still need to be met, but in terms of that baseline equity, in an increasing number of cases, I think we have satisfied — as I think you may have heard from the previous speaker — that there is that feeling of base comparability. We can then move forward with specific discussions as to where we go beyond that in terms of unique needs or additional, supplemental funding that could further enhance the operations of that police service.
Senator Clement: Thank you. But beyond the feeling — and the feeling is important, no question — do you keep track of those numbers?
Mr. Walraven: I do have a team that tries its best to maintain, for our own purposes of negotiating at those tripartite tables, a sense of what our financial landscape looks like and what certain funding agreements mean so that we also have that perspective of comparison across different provincial and territorial jurisdictions. For example, senator, we are in the process right now of negotiating renewals for the Manitoba First Nations Police Service and the three in Alberta. Those tables are different and distinctive, but my team needs to be sure that we have a sense of how we are navigating these conversations overall in order to do our job effectively.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Walraven, in answering one of my previous questions, you used very interesting terminology, which was that they are asking for more precise wording in order to do the kinds of searches that I raised with you. It occurs to me that maybe the question should be this: With the existing wording — I understand the desire for more precise — is there sufficient jurisdiction and authority if it were to be decided and chosen to take more action in terms of the searches that I described?
Mr. Walraven: Senator, recognizing my promise to provide you with more specific written responses because it’s a very legal and technical question that you’re asking, the reason I spoke the way I spoke is because I think — as I was saying previously about the nexus between law enforcement and prosecution when it comes to First Nations law and bylaw enforcement — I am saying this anecdotally, but my understanding when I speak to different stakeholders in the conversation is that if police are going to do some of the things you’re raising in your question, they want to know what the prosecutorial approach is going to be and what the outcomes may be. In some places, that isn’t as overtly clear as people would like, and that’s why I’m using the word “precision.”
I think the best way of answering your question is probably providing a very specific technical answer on the types of legislative amendments that may be considered at present.
Senator McPhedran: And that will come to the committee? Thank you.
Senator McCallum: There are costs involved in making policing more effective. That is how I’m going to use it, because it’s not effective right now. People are put in danger. When I talked to the RCMP, they said, “Well, it’s because we’re dealing with more violence.” And I said it was because it comes from drugs, which the RCMP is refusing to look for. In Manitoba, they can stop at the winter road and search. They’ve only done it once. They said they would continue, but they never did. They found a lot.
So when you look at the costs, if this were to change and the RCMP could enact the bylaws and prosecute, could you offer a level of service that — would you be able to do that, or is the cost going to become prohibitive?
Mr. Walraven: Senator, thanks for raising the winter road issue. That was actually one of the things that several Manitoba Chiefs raised in December when we were talking about it, along with mail searches, aircraft baggage searches and so on. One of the issues we are facing specifically in Manitoba is that the RCMP is lacking a lot of personnel at present. I know they are actively trying to recruit and bring up their numbers so they can provide the types of services they would like for all Manitobans, including First Nations communities.
But I don’t have a precise cost, because I think part of the effort to do the things that we know need to be done, it’s a composition of several things. If you have officers in place, that’s one thing. If you have your legal structures and prosecutorial relationships in place, that’s another thing. We can always do more in terms of — and I think this is an important topic that has probably been discussed at this committee — there is a role for First Nations communities through their own safety initiatives.
All of these things need to be discussed as part of overall strategies for better public safety in First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. I believe that those conversations will continue to evolve. Those conversations, as they evolve, will identify associated costs.
It’s hard for me to give you a ballpark at this moment, but we do know there is a public safety deficit in a lot of First Nations and Inuit communities, and addressing that is going to take additional resources. We are working with provinces and territories on an active basis to find solutions as to how we can do better versus the status quo.
Senator McCallum: Do you fund peace officers? Is that your department that would fund peace officers?
Mr. Walraven: What we fund under FNIPP, it has been a pilot so far. We are committed to rolling this out more broadly in Manitoba, and we’re also working with Saskatchewan to do the same thing. Technically, under provincial law, a First Nations safety officer has authorities similar to a peace officer and can play a structured role as a complement to a police officer in supporting community safety priorities. So whether it’s community patrols or even ticketing of non-criminal offences, we are seeing a maturation of that type of relationship in certain parts of the country.
It’s part of a strategy when you don’t necessarily have a police officer present every day or just as a general good-sense complement to the role of police officers. Some provinces are producing enabling legislation that allows First Nations community members to serve as peace officers in supporting the community safety outcomes of their leadership.
Senator McCallum: I just talked to people at home on my reserve. They had eight peace officers come in and work there for a year. They said 80% of drug dealers are gone, and a lot of people have quit drinking and doing drugs. She said it’s amazing. You need that change to not have to go after personnel. That’s why I asked that question, but it worked. I don’t know for how long, but it did work.
Mr. Walraven: What I can tell you, senator, is the Province of Manitoba, which is responsible for leading the overall strategy that is at the centre of your question, is very committed to First Nations safety officers being part of an overall public safety strategy.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank the witness, Mr. Walraven, for being with us here today. Thank you for your testimony. The time for this panel is complete.
(The committee adjourned.)