Introduction

Background

3.1 Supporting the safety needs of Indigenous communities is a complex endeavour. Policing services provided to these communities need to consider the diversity of Indigenous peoples and communities. According to Indigenous Services Canada and Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, in 2021, there were approximately 680 First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada. These communities vary in size, remoteness, and density of population and have their own unique histories, languages, cultural practices, and spiritual beliefs. Policing services offered to these communities must also recognize the legacy of colonial oppression, residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, and the systemic racism and intergenerational trauma that can affect Indigenous peoples’ trust in policing services, such as those offered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

3.2 The federal government’s role in policing services in First Nations and Inuit communities is grounded in the Constitution Act, 1867. The provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, which includes policing; however, the federal government has jurisdiction in respect of Indigenous peoples and the land of the reserves they live on. To support responsive policing, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments need to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities.

3.3 In 1990, given Indigenous communities’ and government concerns about the adequacy of policing services and the ability of existing services to deal with the unique needs of Indigenous communities, a federal task force examined on‑reserve policing. It revealed that First Nations communities did not have access to a level and quality of policing services, such as response times, equal to non‑Indigenous communities in similar locations. As a result, in 1991, the federal government introduced the First Nations Policing Policy and created the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, originally called the First Nations Policing Program, to implement the policy. In 1996, the policy was updated with the purpose to “contribute to the improvement of social order, public security, and personal safety in First Nations communities, including that of women, children, and other vulnerable groups.” This included providing First Nations and Inuit communities with access to policing services that were professional, effective, and responsive to the needs of communities.

3.4 The First Nations and Inuit Policing Program is a contribution^{Definition 1} program for the funding and negotiation of policing agreements among the federal government, provincial and territorial governments, and First Nations and Inuit communities. The costs of the policing agreements are shared between the federal government (52%) and the relevant province or territory (48%).

3.5 The program has 2 main types of agreements for policing:

• Self‑administered police service agreements. A First Nations or Inuit police service provides day‑to‑day policing services. Public Safety Canada provides the federal portion of the funding to the First Nations or Inuit police service.
• Community tripartite agreements. The RCMP provides dedicated policing services to a First Nations or Inuit community that supplements the police services available through the province or territory.

To establish community tripartite agreements, Public Safety Canada needs to first enter into a framework agreement with the specific province or territory of jurisdiction. These framework agreements set the terms and conditions under which the governments will support the provision of the program within the province or territory. Once these frameworks are signed, Public Safety Canada can then negotiate community tripartite agreements with provinces or territories and First Nations or Inuit communities. The RCMP is the service provider and not a signatory to the community tripartite agreements.

3.6 The type and number of self‑administered and community tripartite agreements under the program can vary between jurisdictions. For example, Quebec has only self‑administered police service agreements, while British Columbia has mostly community tripartite agreements. See Exhibit 3.1 for a map of how each type of agreement is distributed across Canada by population covered.

3.7 The length of self‑administered and community tripartite agreements vary from 1 to 10 years. As part of the establishment of these agreements, the 1996 First Nations Policing Policy states the importance of promoting partnerships with First Nations communities “based on trust, mutual respect and participation in decision making.” According to Public Safety Canada, as of the 2020–21 fiscal year, the program had 36 self‑administered police service agreements, which covered 155 communities, and 140 community tripartite agreements, which covered 230 communities. As policing services are under the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, communities not covered by the program would be reliant on policing services through their municipal, provincial, or territorial governments.

3.8 In our 2014 audit of Public Safety Canada’s First Nations Policing Program, we concluded that the program was not adequately designed to deliver and did not adequately ensure that policing services on First Nations reserves were delivered in a manner consistent with the principles of the program’s policy.

3.9 In addition to our performance audit, there have been reports, calls for justice, human rights complaints, and litigation highlighting concerns and challenges associated with policing services offered to Indigenous peoples and, more specifically, concerns related to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. For example, in 2022, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the implementation of the program by the Government of Canada resulted in systemic discrimination against the Première Nation des Pekuakamiulnuatsh (Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation). Also in 2022, the Court of Appeal of Quebec ordered the governments of Canada and Quebec to reimburse the First Nation for funding deficits in its policing services. The tribunal and the court of appeal each noted systemic deficits and underfunding of the program in their decisions. Both decisions are currently under appeal.

3.10 First Nations have voiced the need for a new legislative and funding framework for the program. They have also advocated for legislation that would deem First Nations policing services as essential services like policing services in municipalities, provinces, and territories in Canada. The federal government has committed to work in partnership with Indigenous communities, the provinces, the territories, and other partners. In 2015, it committed to fully implementing recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and to implementing the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This includes achieving the following United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which are important to policing in First Nations and Inuit communities:

• Goal 5 (Gender Equality)
• Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
• Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

In 2021, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act came into force and the Minister of Public Safety was mandated to co‑develop legislation that recognized First Nations policing services as essential services.

3.11 Public Safety Canada. This department manages and oversees the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. It is responsible for working with provinces, territories, and First Nations and Inuit communities to negotiate and implement the self‑administered police service agreements and the community tripartite agreements that meet the needs of each community. Public Safety Canada has 5 regional offices across Canada whose responsibilities include supporting the program’s delivery.

3.12 Public Safety Canada’s Indigenous Affairs Branch leads and supports the implementation of Public Safety Canada’s priorities related to Indigenous policing and justice. These priorities included co‑developing federal legislation on First Nations policing services.

3.13 RCMP. The RCMP delivers dedicated policing services to First Nations and Inuit communities that supplement policing services provided by provincial and territorial police agreements. Under the community tripartite agreements, the RCMP is the service provider and is not a signatory to the agreements. In order for the RCMP to carry out its responsibilities under the program, Public Safety Canada transfers the federal portion of the funding to the RCMP. The RCMP has 13 geographical divisions outside its headquarters. Within these divisions, the RCMP operates detachments to support policing operations across Canada.

Focus of the audit

3.14 This audit focused on whether

• Public Safety Canada, under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, worked in partnership with Indigenous communities to provide equitable access to police services that are tailored to the needs of communities
• the RCMP, under the program, worked in partnership with Indigenous communities to deliver dedicated and tailored police services that supplement the services provided to provinces and territories under police service agreements

3.15 This audit examined equitable access to policing services on the basis of how available funds were allocated to current program recipients.

3.16 This audit is important because policing services are intended to protect the safety and security of individuals. Because many existing policing systems in Canada were introduced in Indigenous communities through colonization, ensuring that Indigenous communities receive policing services that recognize and respect their culture, history, and rights is essential. Supporting responsive, effective policing services that meet the needs of Indigenous communities also supports the federal government’s commitment to reconciliation.

3.17 More details about the audit objective, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this report.

Findings and Recommendations

Public Safety Canada poorly managed the program

3.18 This finding matters because Indigenous communities are facing complex and significant challenges stemming from colonization, which are compounded by health and socio-economic inequities. Access to appropriate and culturally responsive policing services provided through the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program is integral to promoting the safety and well‑being of Indigenous communities and supporting self‑determination and reconciliation.

3.19 Since our 2014 audit, the program has received increased funding in 2018 and 2021. See Exhibit 3.2 for the funding announced and the intended use of these funds.

3.20 When the program receives new federal funding, Public Safety Canada informs the provinces and territories about the funding available. Under the program’s cost‑sharing structure, the provinces and territories are to provide 48% of funding for new or expanded investments in First Nations and Inuit community policing. Once a province or territory secures its share, Public Safety Canada and the province or territory negotiate new or renewed agreements with the First Nations and Inuit communities.

3.21 The expenditures for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program totalled approximately $930 million from the 2018–19 to 2022–23 fiscal years. This includes the expenditures of both Public Safety Canada and the RCMP and includes both self‑administered police service agreements and community tripartite agreements. These expenditures exclude Public Safety Canada salaries and other operational costs (Exhibit 3.3).

Poor financial management oversight

3.22 We found that Public Safety Canada provided poor financial management oversight of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program funding. The department did not know how much of the additional program funding it had allocated to the specific self‑administered police service agreements and community tripartite agreements, and it did not know what amount of funding remained to be allocated. Public Safety Canada officials told us the department lacked modernized information technology systems to efficiently monitor and track program spending.

3.23 In the 2022–23 fiscal year, Public Safety Canada did not disburse about $17 million of the approximately $196‑million program funds available. While some of the undisbursed funds were approved for use in 2023–24, $9.4 million remained unused by the program.

3.24 Furthermore, in the same fiscal year, Public Safety Canada did not verify whether the funds transferred to the RCMP were being used for program costs or on other policing services. We found that the RCMP did not spend $3.6 million of the program funding provided by Public Safety Canada in 2022–23. According to Public Safety Canada, the department last performed a review in 2018–19 of RCMP expenditures to ensure that funds were used for the program. However, the department could not provide documentation of this review.

3.25 When combining Public Safety Canada’s undisbursed program funds of $9.4 million and the RCMP’s unspent funds of $3.6 million, a total of $13.0 million related to the 2022–23 fiscal year was not spent on the program.

3.26 As of October 2023, Public Safety Canada anticipates that over $45 million in program funds will be left undisbursed at the end of the 2023–24 fiscal year. The failure to disburse funds in a timely manner is significant because of the concerns raised about the underfunding of this program, which is intended to support the well‑being of First Nations and Inuit communities.

3.27 Public Safety Canada officials explained to us that they were not solely responsible for decisions related to the allocation of program funds. They noted that without the funding from the provinces or territories, the department cannot enter into new policing agreements or renew agreements to provide additional funding, which can lead to unused program funds.

Limited expansion of the program despite additional funding

3.28 With the additional funding announced in 2021 (Exhibit 3.2), Public Safety Canada was to stabilize and, starting in the 2022–23 fiscal year, expand the program. The expansion of the program was to include

• signing new agreements with communities not currently in the program or adding communities to existing agreements
• supporting communities under an existing community tripartite agreement to transition to a self‑administered police service agreement

3.29 We found that Public Safety Canada made limited progress in expanding the program to First Nations and Inuit communities not yet funded by the program, despite their commitments and plans to do so. This included increasing the number of communities under self‑administered police service agreements and expanding the program to the North. Since additional funding was received to expand the program, no communities had been added to an existing self‑administered police service agreement within our audit period. However, one agreement was finalized in September 2023, shortly after our audit period.

3.30 As for the expansion to the North, the department extended the program to Nunavut by signing a framework agreement with the territorial government in 2023. It also increased the funding allocated under its framework agreement with the Northwest Territories. While the framework agreements are an important first step to expansion, in order to receive enhanced policing services by the RCMP under the program, First Nations and Inuit communities need signed community tripartite agreements to be in place. No community tripartite agreements have yet been signed in these 2 territories.

3.31 Public Safety Canada officials told us that they jointly decided with the provinces and territories to focus the additional 2021 funding on stabilizing existing agreements over expanding the program to new communities given gaps between the funding available and the needs of communities already in the program.

3.32 We also found that Public Safety Canada did not know the full demand of the program. The department had no application process for First Nations and Inuit communities that wanted to join the program or for existing program recipients to apply for additional funding. We had a similar finding a decade ago. As part of the current audit, department officials told us that there was no application process because of the limited funding available. Public Safety Canada officials also noted that given provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, which includes policing, the provinces and territories have a key role in determining where additional funds are most needed within their jurisdiction.

Lack of approach to support equitable funding decisions

3.33 We found that Public Safety Canada had not defined what equitable funding meant despite the program’s policy outlining the need for the program to be supported by consistent and equitable funding arrangements. Additionally, the department did not have an approach to allocate funds equitably to program recipients.

3.34 We found that the department, in collaboration with their provincial and territorial partners, had developed funding priorities or criteria to allocate some of the additional funds from 2018 and 2021. For example, it considered issues pertaining to officer safety and the remoteness of communities. However, we found that on the basis of the records of decisions related to funding allocation, it was unclear how these priorities or criteria were used. Public Safety Canada officials told us that ultimately, the provinces’ or territories’ readiness to fund their share of the program and the historical funding received by program recipients determined how much funding was allocated.

Lack of consistent engagement and partnership with communities

3.35 We found a lack of consistent engagement and partnership with communities that were funded under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. We were told by Public Safety Canada officials that engagement is limited with communities under community tripartite agreements given that these agreements include an auto‑renewal clause and that the last formal conversations between the department and most community tripartite agreement holders was in 2018. In our sample of 26 communities under community tripartite agreements, all had an auto‑renewal clause that could range from 10 to 15 years. This means that Public Safety Canada could defer its engagement with communities for many years. In our view, regular engagement with communities is important to build strong partnerships and understand the needs of First Nations and Inuit communities.

3.36 We also examined a sample of 12 self‑administered agreements. We found that Public Safety Canada had more engagement with communities under these agreements. However, Public Safety Canada officials told us that before engaging with communities, the funding available to these communities had already been determined on the basis of available federal funding and the province’s readiness to fund its share.

3.37 This finding was consistent with concerns we heard from First Nations and Inuit communities during our audit. They shared that their engagement with Public Safety Canada did not reflect true negotiations. Opportunities for the signatory communities to provide input and participate in decision making on policing services are fundamental to supporting self‑determination and reconciliation efforts.

3.38 We had a similar finding related to community engagement in our 2014 audit of the program. At the time, Public Safety Canada agreed with our recommendation to ensure that communities had meaningful input when entering into policing agreements. As part of the current audit, Public Safety Canada officials noted that its current and past staffing levels had not been sufficient to appropriately support ongoing and meaningful engagement with the program-funded communities across Canada.

3.39 We also found that except for one of its regional offices, Public Safety Canada did not require its staff to complete cultural awareness training on Indigenous culture and history. Furthermore, we found that the department did not have for its staff working directly with First Nations and Inuit communities any guidelines that outlined expectations for community engagement and negotiations. In our view, such guidance would assist with engagement and working in partnership with First Nations and Inuit communities. These findings do not align with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada call to action for the government to provide training to public servants and with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples commitment to promote understanding and good relations between government and Indigenous peoples.

Lack of information to measure the program’s effectiveness

3.40 We found that Public Safety Canada did not know whether the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program was achieving most of its key expected results. Therefore, the department did not know whether the program was effective. Public Safety Canada reported on the access to funding by First Nations and Inuit communities and crime statistics within these communities. However, it did not monitor or report on whether the program was funding police services that were dedicated and responsive to the needs and culture of these communities. This is despite Public Safety Canada having agreed to our recommendation in 2014 to refine the performance measurement strategy of the program.

3.41 Self‑administered police service agreements require that First Nations and Inuit police services provide information, including audited financial statements and annual activity reports, to Public Safety Canada to receive funding. We found that once the department received the annual activity reports, which included information such as community-specific crime and intervention statistics and complaints, it did not aggregate and subsequently analyze the information contained in the activity reports of program recipients. In our view, the department missed opportunities to use this information to

• determine the program’s effectiveness
• identify trends, needs, and risks that could inform funding requests
• make program adjustments
• provide valuable input to self‑administered police services and the communities they serve

3.42 We also found that Public Safety Canada did not have sufficient information to know whether the RCMP was able to meet some of the requirements of community tripartite agreements. For example, it did not have a system in place to monitor whether the RCMP officers serving communities under such an agreement devoted 100% of their work hours to the First Nations or Inuit community as required (see paragraph 3.52 for requirements of the community tripartite agreement).

3.43 Furthermore, we found that the gathering and analyzing of program data were so limited that Public Safety Canada did not have an accurate listing of the signed community tripartite agreements. This information is important in order to have an accurate representation of the number of communities covered under the community tripartite agreements and to support good decision making and program management.

3.44 We also found that Public Safety Canada did not have information on whether the program was designed and delivered to be inclusive and gender- and diversity-sensitive. This was despite the program’s policy noting that the program aims to contribute to the improvement of social order, public security, and personal safety in First Nations and Inuit communities, including that of women, children, and other vulnerable groups.

3.45 The 2019 Final Report of the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on the federal government to gather distinction-based data (how each First Nations and Inuit community is different) and intersectional data (how aspects of identity overlap to create and deepen discrimination and inequalities) about Indigenous women, girls, and 2‑spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse (2SLGBTQI+) people. By not gathering such data, Public Safety Canada could not examine whether the program was reducing the inequities faced by these groups. The department was also missing the opportunity to contribute to advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality), Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

3.46 In addition, we found that as of November 2023, the department had not updated the program’s policy. This was despite the fact that as part of our 2014 audit of the program, Public Safety Canada had indicated that the 1996 First Nations Policing Policy was outdated and impractical and had agreed to our recommendation to update the policy.

3.47 Many of our findings and resulting recommendations for Public Safety Canada are interrelated. Furthermore, some align with findings and recommendations we made in 2014.

3.48 Given the long‑standing issues with the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, and given the federal government’s commitment to truth and reconciliation, Public Safety Canada should work with First Nations and Inuit communities, the provinces and territories, and the RCMP to develop and implement a renewed approach to the program. This approach should include

• updating the 1996 First Nations Policing Policy
• immediately revising the current funding allocation process so that it allows for the timely funding to recipients, the disbursement of program funds, and the achievement of the department’s commitment to equitable funding. The revision should take into account the timing of provincial and territorial funding as well as solutions to disburse federal funds available when provinces and territories are unable to secure their share of the funding.
• developing a mechanism to track the interest, needs, and demand for the program by jurisdiction. The information collected should be used to inform future funding requests and equitable allocation for the program.
• working in partnership with program recipients in a consistent and meaningful manner. Engagement by department officials should be supported by monitoring and feedback, mandatory cultural training, and guidance on the nature, timing, frequency, and expected measurable outcomes of engagement.
• updating performance measurement and reporting so that the department, provinces and territories, and First Nations and Inuit communities know whether the program is achieving its intended results and outcomes and so that the department can make adjustments as needed. This approach should be culturally sensitive and include collecting, monitoring, analyzing, and reporting performance data that is distinction-based and intersectional.

Public Safety Canada’s response. Agreed.

See Recommendations and Responses at the end of this report for detailed responses.

The RCMP did not consistently deliver on its responsibilities under the program

3.49 This finding matters because the purpose of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program is to provide communities with policing services that are dedicated and responsive to First Nations and Inuit communities’ needs.

3.50 The RCMP policing services provided as part of the program are meant to supplement the policing services available through the province or territory. This distinction is particularly important in the jurisdictions where the RCMP serves as the provincial police service and is also providing policing services under the program. Services under the program aim to address the needs of the community being served and emphasize a community-based and proactive policing approach.

3.51 Only 3 provinces in Canada have a provincial police force. In the absence of provincial police force coverage, provinces and territories sign contracts with the RCMP to provide policing services within the jurisdiction. The RCMP is responsible for assigning dedicated officers to the First Nations and Inuit communities under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, in addition to the provincial and territorial policing services provided under separate contracts. The federal government pays a higher portion (52%) for policing under the program than when it funds the RCMP directly for separate policing contracts with provinces and territories (30%).

3.52 Once RCMP officers are assigned to a community tripartite agreement position under the program (an agreement signed between the federal government, a province or territory, and a First Nations or Inuit community), they are required, among other things, to

• dedicate 100% of their regular working hours performing work related to the First Nations or Inuit community
• become familiar with the culture and traditions of the community and provide community and crime-prevention policing (for example, attending community events and doing prevention activities in schools)
• work collaboratively with communities to establish policing priorities
• monitor and report progress on community policing priorities

Insufficient number of RCMP officers dedicated to communities

3.53 We examined a sample of 26 communities under a community tripartite agreement to determine whether RCMP officers were meeting the requirements of spending 100% of their working hours dedicated to the community under the agreement. We found that only 10 (38%) of the 26 communities from our sample were served by RCMP detachments that indicated they could consistently meet the requirement. RCMP detachments unable to meet this requirement indicated to us that RCMP officers under the program must often fulfill other responsibilities because of overall staffing shortages. This means that RCMP officers may not be fully dedicated to the First Nations or Inuit community they are supposed to serve.

3.54 We found that over the past 5 years, the RCMP had not fully staffed the community tripartite agreement positions that it received funding for from the program. This means that some communities with community tripartite agreements were not being served by the agreed‑on number of officers to enhance the policing services provided through provincial or territorial police service agreements.

3.55 In the last 3 years, as program funding for officers had increased, the RCMP had not been able to fill these additional positions, leading to a greater difference between the number of officer positions funded and the number filled (Exhibit 3.4).

3.56 We found that, although the RCMP had acknowledged broader staffing challenges, it had no national staffing approach to fill its obligations under the community tripartite agreements as police service providers. RCMP divisions had to work among themselves to address resource gaps. RCMP officials told us that the RCMP struggled to attract new recruits to community tripartite agreement positions due to factors such as remoteness.

3.57 RCMP officials told us that community tripartite agreements can be signed with communities without Public Safety Canada first determining whether RCMP officers are available to meet the terms of the agreement. This is consistent with what we were told by Public Safety Canada regional staff in jurisdictions with community tripartite agreements, who, except for those in 1 region, confirmed that they did not engage with the RCMP before signing the agreements. This means that First Nations and Inuit communities are signing agreements with the expectation of having dedicated and tailored policing services, but the RCMP may not be able to meet the terms of the agreement. In our view, in the context of reconciliation and the complex history between the RCMP and First Nations and Inuit communities, this process is detrimental to building trust.

3.58 Public Safety Canada and the RCMP, in collaboration with First Nations and Inuit communities and with provinces and territories, should collaborate before new and renewed community tripartite agreements are signed to determine what is possible to offer to communities on the basis of resource capacity.

Response of each entity. Agreed.

See Recommendations and Responses at the end of this report for detailed responses.

3.59 The RCMP should develop and implement a national strategy to address staffing shortages in community tripartite positions in order to ensure that RCMP officers assigned to First Nations and Inuit communities are able to deliver on their responsibilities under the program. As part of this, the RCMP should consult with First Nations and Inuit communities and with Public Safety Canada to understand the interest in the program, community needs, and trends.

The RCMP’s response. Agreed.

See Recommendations and Responses at the end of this report for detailed responses.

No requirement for culturally specific training to understand the culture of the community being served

3.60 The community tripartite agreements require that RCMP officers be familiar with the specific culture and traditions of the First Nations or Inuit community they serve. However, while we were told by some divisions that they offered training initiatives specific to the communities they served, we found that overall, the RCMP did not require its officers assigned to positions within the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program to complete any cultural sensitivity training beyond the mandatory cultural sensitivity training offered to all RCMP officers. This contradicts the RCMP’s own efforts to align with the Government of Canada’s commitment to truth and reconciliation. In our opinion, additional training is important to better understand the specific culture of the First Nations or Inuit community and to build relationships and trust within the communities.

3.61 The RCMP, in collaboration with First Nations and Inuit communities, should develop mechanisms to ensure that the RCMP officers working under community tripartite agreements become familiar with the culture and traditions of the community they serve as required in the agreements. The participation in these activities should be monitored by the RCMP.

The RCMP’s response. Agreed.

See Recommendations and Responses at the end of this report for detailed responses.

Inconsistent implementation and monitoring of whether policing services promote partnerships with communities

3.62 We found that the RCMP did not consistently monitor whether detachments were meeting the requirements of the community tripartite agreements. There was no national approach for the RCMP to monitor whether detachments were

• providing community-based policing or prevention
• engaging in activities to promote partnerships with communities, such as setting policing priorities with communities and establishing letters of expectation^{Definition 2}
• reporting to communities

3.63 We found that in our sample of 26 communities with community tripartite agreements, RCMP officers from detachments serving these communities varied in their description of the primary duties of officers. Under the program, services offered by the RCMP are meant to supplement the policing services available through the province or territory and should include community-based policing (such as crime-prevention activities). However, in 7 (27%) of the communities in our sample, the RCMP officers from detachments informed us that the primary duties were responding to calls and enforcement. In addition, RCMP officers told us that the RCMP did not provide clear guidance to detachments on the roles and duties of an RCMP officer under a community tripartite agreement. Community-based policing and crime-prevention activities are important to build partnerships, trust, and reconciliation with community members through efforts outside of traditional or reactive enforcement.

3.64 We found that in 18 (69%) of the 26 communities with community tripartite agreements in our sample, RCMP detachments had worked with the community they served under the agreement to set policing priorities. However, only 3 (12%) of the 26 detachments had documented these priorities in a current letter of expectation as required by the agreements. The nature of this collaboration between the RCMP and communities to set priorities varied from official meetings with community leaders to community surveys.

3.65 We found that in 16 (62%) of the 26 communities in our sample, RCMP detachments serving these communities had prepared reports in 2022–23 at least quarterly, as required. These reports included information such as crime statistics, progress toward policing priorities, staffing levels, and community engagement activities. However, in only 7 of the 16 cases could detachments produce evidence that these reports had been provided to the communities served.

3.66 Our recommendation for this section is at paragraph 3.70.

No information on program effectiveness

3.67 We found that the RCMP did not monitor or report on the overall effectiveness of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. Each detachment is required to complete an annual performance report. However, these annual reports combine activities carried out by the RCMP detachment under the program and under other policing responsibilities. Consequently, it was not possible to decipher whether the outputs and outcomes in these reports were directly related to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program or part of the RCMP’s overall activities.

3.68 RCMP officials explained that Public Safety Canada is responsible for determining, reviewing, and updating the program’s performance indicators, as the RCMP is not a signatory to the community tripartite agreements and Public Safety Canada holds the policy authority for the program. In contrast, Public Safety Canada noted that it is not the department’s role to measure the quality of policing services given that policing and setting policing standards are under the jurisdiction of provinces and territories. This could leave First Nations and Inuit communities unclear as to whom they need to turn to if the program does not meet their safety and security needs.

3.69 Furthermore, we found that the RCMP had not developed a clear and systematic approach to collect intersectional data within the program to inform service delivery and related intended outcomes. In our sample of 26 communities with community tripartite agreements, most of the detachments informed us that they did not collect disaggregated data on First Nations and Inuit women, children, youth, or elders. Moreover, none of the detachments serving the communities in our sample indicated that they collected information on 2SLGBTQI+ people. Given the 2022 RCMP commissioner mandate letter to advance reconciliation and address the national tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ people, ensuring that this data can be captured, collected, and analyzed by the RCMP is imperative.

3.70 The RCMP, in collaboration with Public Safety Canada, should implement mechanisms to ensure that the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program is being delivered as required and is achieving the intended results. This should include

• providing clear guidance to its detachments about the requirements of its officers working under community tripartite agreements
• monitoring the detachments’ fulfillment of requirements outlined in community tripartite agreements to ensure that partnerships with communities are being established and maintained
• establishing, tracking, and reporting on program‑wide performance indicators using a distinction-based approach and intersectional data. To align with truth and reconciliation, First Nations and Inuit Policing Program recipients should be included in establishing the performance indicators, data‑gathering techniques, and reporting requirements to ensure that the data management is culturally sensitive and supports self‑determination.
• making adjustments to the program on the basis of the data gathered on the program delivery and effectiveness

The RCMP’s response. Agreed.

See Recommendations and Responses at the end of this report for detailed responses.

Conclusion

3.71 We concluded that under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, Public Safety Canada did not work in partnership with Indigenous communities to provide equitable access to police services that are tailored to the needs of communities.

3.72 We also concluded that the RCMP did not work in partnership with Indigenous communities under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program to deliver dedicated and tailored police services that supplemented the services provided to provinces and territories under police service agreements.