THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 26, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9 a.m. to the subject matter of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, insofar as it relates to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[Editors's Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I’d like to welcome all people either here in the room or watching via the web.
My name is Senator Lillian Dyck. First I should acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded land of the Algonquin peoples.
Good morning. I’m the chair of this committee and I’m from Saskatchewan. I would like my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, senator for Alberta.
Senator White: Vern White from Ontario.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Christmas: Good morning. Daniel Christmas from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today we are having an all-day session on Bill C-45. This committee has been charged at looking at the subject matter of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis. We are looking into it insofar as it relates to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
We are pleased today to have some witnesses from Nunavut. Before we begin with our witnesses, we have some information from NTI that’s in English only. Could we have a motion allow the distribution of the material to the senators?
Senator Patterson: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. That information will now be distributed.
We have two panels today. On the first panel we have two elders, Isaac Shooyook, who is accompanied by Geela Arnauyumayuq; and Louis Uttak, accompanied by George Qulaut.
For the second panel we have the president of NTI, Aluki Kotierk. I hope I got your names reasonably correct. The two panels have 10 minutes each and then we will follow with questions by the senators. We have interpretation from the Inuktitut language into English and probably the reverse as well.
Elders, if you would proceed, please.
[Interpretation]
Isaac Shooyook, as an individual: Cannabis being legalized is very scary and affects our lives in Nunavut. We don`t have any kind of prevention for it. It’s not going to help the future generation. It will break them. While our government is trying to legalize marijuana, there are no preventative measures or supports. This is very critical. There are no resources, there are no healing centres and there are no shelters for elders. Because of those factors in Nunavut, there are none of those preventative measures. It’s very critical. Please be aware that in Nunavut, there is no support system for those people who will need help.
With the legalization of cannabis, I don’t know how we’ll deal with it if we have no support system. In Nunavut, there’s none. There’s no support. There’s no preventative measures. If you’re going to legalize it, many people will be impacted, even children. If they’re going to start smoking it like tobacco, it will open doors for everybody. It’s not a pleasant thing to see. Many problems will be encountered by our future generations. Today there are no social counselling services. There are police in the systems. There are nurses and social workers, but they cannot help the people who really need that kind of help.
In Nunavut, whenever we get assessed, we have a goal. They say that Nunavut smokes the most. Their highest rate is for alcohol problems. We heard that Nunavut will be using cannabis and that they use it the most. This is not very pleasant for our future. It’s unacceptable.
What I'm saying is very important. Please, the people who live in Nunavut have no one to help. We need help with prevention. For example, I’ve been touched by my children who are using it. It is very scary. I repeat: What I’m talking about is important. There is nothing in place. There is no social help. If you’re going to legalize this for the people in Nunavut, including children, there will be no social help.
For 50 years I have wanted this to not be legalized in Nunavut, because we have nothing in place to help for people who need help. There will probably be cost factors to this.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Uttak, are you speaking as well?
I think we’re ready to go.
Elder Uttak, we’re ready to go.
[Interpretation]
Louis Uttak, as an individual: I’m from Nunavut. My father had advised me before that no White man will ever control you. I’m an Inuk. I will hold on to that forever. My language, the people, the Eskimos and the First Nations and their stories — they were the first Indigenous people.
My father had told me before that no White man will ever agree with you. I didn’t know anything about government. I’m just going to tell you about my life. What I say is legitimate. There are very few of us elders. There is fear of elders nowadays. Our life is precious. It was just alcohol at first. Now in Nunavut they’re using a lot of cannabis. We get our elder pension every month, once a month. They will follow us around so they can get money and we say no, it's because they want to buy that. This has to be properly dealt with. They’re probably going to start using pills as well, other drugs. That’s what my mom had told me before. My mother told me, “When you get married, don’t chase other women. Don’t have a different affair.” If I had fathered her, it would have been harmony.
When I started going to school, that was a mistake, I think. So in Canada, as people from Canada, let’s reconcile. Let’s be a partnership. Let’s not categorize us between Inuit and White people and other cultures. We have to have a relationship and work together and understand this cannabis issue and not fight one another.
Let’s not argue about it. Let’s properly deal with this. That’s my thought, thinking of our future. I’m sorry; I am very emotional because of our future generation. Life is very precious. Every year we hear these stories about cannabis being legalized. So thank you for listening to me. I don’t want to take too much of your time. But I’m sorry, I get emotional very easily. That’s who I am. I love everyone because of my compassion. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Now Ms. Aluki Kotierk from Nunavut Tunngavik.
The support people may wish to add something to what the elders have said. George?
[Interpretation]
George Qulaut, Support Person, as an individual: I’m going to speak in Inuktitut as well as in English. My name is George Qulaut from Igloolik. I’m going to tell you a bit of a story I had personally experienced, and I’m going to also say that our people that I have spoken to about what we’re talking about today —
[English]
First of all, I wish to thank each and every one of you for inviting us to come here and hear our concerns. Also, it is important to voice our concerns and experiences before the legalization of marijuana. It has happened in the past that none of this — I feel this is the first time that the Senate is about to hear from the Inuit how the future will hold, and it is important for us to speak out and please do hear our voice.
I was educated here in Ottawa back in 1974 to 1978. And in 1974 it was a huge culture shock for me to be able to live in the southern world. Our culture is a hunting culture, and I remember my community having four wooden houses, and today it is one of the largest communities in Baffin Island. During that time, we hear everything from the South. Our ways were taken away, a good number of the things that we believed in were taken away, and our beliefs -- religion came from overseas and we had to respect and learn a lot from that.
I came to Ottawa in 1974 and by April 1975 I became very homesick. This is exactly what happened to me. It’s something that when I think back I laugh about it. It’s sort of a humorous story because we were very innocent. We knew nothing about marijuana or any recreational drugs.
I became very homesick. Walking down the Sparks Street Mall in late April, the sun was out and everybody I met had long faces that made me even more homesick. I started to think, I’ll pretend to be home. I’ll try my best to think I am back home. So every person I started meeting, I started smiling at them. I started saying hello. People reacted. They smiled back and it felt great.
And a young man came up to me and I was smiling at him and I said hello to him. He asked me, “Are you stoned?” And I said, “No. I have lots of stones at home.” And then he asked me another question. “Are you high?” “No, I’m on the ground.” And then he got confused and then he said, “Are you drunk?” “No. I’m only homesick.” And then he asked me, “Would you like to buy some grass?” And I said, “No. My landlord, every Saturday, makes me cut the grass in the backyard and front yard and we have enough grass. I don’t need it.” And then he said, “Would you like to buy some hash?” And I said, “No, I don’t need to buy hash. Every Sunday my landlady cooks hash and potatoes and we have them. I don’t need any of those.”
And that was the reality of it. I knew nothing, absolutely nothing about it. That was the first education I had and the most memorable education I ever had on recreational drugs.
I told my landlord about it and he said, “I’m sorry, George, I cannot tell you anything about recreational drugs. If you like, I can ask a friend of mine to explain to you.” And his friend happened to be a doctor, and he took me to the mental institution here in Ottawa and I had an appointment to see him on a Saturday from eight o’clock in the morning until nine, and I said that was fine. So we went. My landlord drove me over to the institution, and it taught me a lot. That was the best education I ever had in my life. It was an education that I’ll hold for the rest of my life. I was there from eight o’clock to nine o’clock — not one hour, 13 hours, because I was asking too many questions.
What I’m saying is we knew nothing about recreational drugs of any kind, and I believe education is the most important thing before it becomes a reality. We need to be educated, most importantly amongst the young people, amongst children, on the dangers of recreational drugs. Even though it’s a medical drug, I knew alcohol was medical, it was considered medicine way back then and today we’re saying that it’s medical marijuana. I have nothing against it because it’s medical.
To me, what my elders have said, we do need healing centres, and most importantly we need to be educated on new things. Most of the laws we have here in Southern Canada are very new to us as well. We knew nothing about them. We became criminals without knowing and it’s important for us to be educated.
Also, I want to say something that is very personal as well. My child, at the age of 20, committed suicide and it was linked to schizophrenia. She got it through marijuana. First try, she got it and she couldn’t cope with the world. I myself had to find her lying on the floor holding a gun in her hand. For this reason, I am angry over this.
I thank you for listening to me.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We’ll now move to the witness from NTI.
[Interpretation]
Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: Good morning. Thank you for having me here to speak to you and my fellow Inuit here, that we are able to come speak here. Thank you.
I’m going to speak in English so that they can understand me perfectly.
[English]
This morning we’re talking about the subject matter of Bill C-45, and specifically how the legalization of cannabis will affect Indigenous people and communities. I am here from Nunavut, the only jurisdiction in Canada where the Indigenous population is the majority. Spread out over 25 communities, all fly-in communities, Inuit make up 85 per cent of the population.
Roughly half of the Inuit population is under the age of 25 years old. The first language of the majority of the population is Inuktitut. Both French and English are minority languages in Nunavut.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. represents a little over 31,000 Inuit that are enrolled under the Nunavut agreement. The Nunavut agreement is a constitutionally protected land claims agreement between Inuit represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Canada representing the Crown.
I want to draw your attention to article 32 of the Nunavut agreement, which states how governments will fulfil their obligations:
(a) providing Inuit with an opportunity to participate in the development of social and cultural policies, and in the design of social and cultural programs and services, including their method of delivery, in the Nunavut Settlement Area; and
(b) endeavouring to reflect Inuit goals and objectives where it puts in place such social and cultural policies, programs and services in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
At our October 27 annual general meeting, there was a resolution passed by the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated membership calling upon the Government of Canada to postpone the legalization of cannabis to allow more time to consult with Inuit on the timing and appropriate mitigation measures.
Further, members called on governments to make it a priority to establish addictions treatment and rehabilitation and healing centres in Nunavut. A copy of the resolution has been provided. Following the annual general meeting, I sent a letter to the Prime Minister with a copy of the resolution from the NTI membership.
As members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, you are well versed on the legacy of colonialism, residential schools and historic injustices to the Inuit people of Canada, including the Inuit of Arctic Canada. You understand how these systemic impacts have negatively affected our population, resulting in disproportionately higher incidences of drug and alcohol dependence and addiction.
For over three decades, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has been calling for services and facilities for addictions and trauma healing. Despite the great need that we have in Nunavut, currently there are no addiction centres in our entire jurisdiction. Nunavut makes up one fifth of the Canadian geography, yet there is no addictions treatment centre.
Most likely this does not come as a surprise because our jurisdiction has an infrastructure deficit in every imaginable area, from housing to broadband to small craft harbours to roads, et cetera. You name it, we’re in a deficit in terms of infrastructure.
In fact, my view is that Canada has not completed its nation-building exercise. It started off making massive amounts of infrastructure investments, connecting the East Coast to the West Coast, but has yet to appropriately invest in the infrastructure needs to connect the longest coastline in Canada, the Arctic. Canada needs a comprehensive infrastructure strategy for the Arctic.
In the past year, in partnership with the Government of Canada and the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has been involved in the development of a feasibility study for an addictions and trauma treatment centre. Currently, there is a focus on community-based programming to ensure there are culturally appropriate and linguistically accessible services within our communities that are holistic in nature.
There is also a desire to include on-the-land programming. There is a need for more available mental health services. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has made tremendous efforts to eliminate mental health gaps by supporting the enhancement of counselling training programs to increase the number of mental health workers who provide services in Inuktitut. It is crucial that Inuit receive essential services in Inuktitut. Public awareness information about cannabis needs to be available in Inuktitut in Nunavut.
The federal budget identified a $200 million commitment to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions treatment and prevention services in First Nations communities. It is not yet clear to me what that means for Inuit communities.
What is clear to me, though, and I was very pleased to see that the Government of Nunavut’s recently released a mandate document, Turaaqtavut, stated and identified the priority of improving the outcomes of mental health, addictions and family counselling through existing and traditional counselling systems.
Moving forward, Canada needs to ensure appropriate considerations have been made in terms of the infrastructure deficit and the scarcity of mental health services in Inuktitut within Nunavut to ensure that Nunavut Inuit are provided equitable programs, supports and information available to other Canadians.
In conclusion, I hope that I have effectively portrayed a jurisdiction with many needs. A jurisdiction that is faced with so many pressing issues and needs, and yet our public government has been forced to focus its limited human resources and rechannel its energies and efforts on developing regulations to address a priority of the federal government. But the federal government must recognize that Nunavut faces unique circumstances that require focused attention on establishing a treatment centre and providing information in Inuktitut about cannabis and providing mental health services in Inuktitut.
[Interpretation]
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Tannas: Thank you all for being here this morning. I know you’ve come a great distance to be here with us.
I understand, Ms. Arnauyumayuq that you are involved in the education system in your community. Could you give us a description of what attendance is like at schools, high school rates of completion, that sort of thing?
Geela Arnauyumayuq, Support Person, as an individual: Thank you. I’m Geela Arnauyumayuq from Arctic Bay. I was previous mayor and now I’m a councillor for the hamlet. I also work at the school in Arctic Bay. We have 235 students from preschool to Grade 12.
Our high school attendance has gone down because there’s no daycare services at the school, and we have a very high rate of suicide. We had two suicides in the last month.
We’ve had three attempts. It’s really hard. I thought I was going to have time to talk, but thank you for your question.
Our attendance rate has gone down a lot. The last suicide we had was a 15-year-old. He just started Grade 10. We have no counsellors, let alone a school counsellor or mental health worker. It’s like we’re in a state of emergency, one suicide after another. It’s hard. We’re asking the government if they can help us. We’re reaching out. We need help.
It all started with the relocation of people. My mother passed away when she was 45 because she was moved to a different community. She was just starting her life and a lot of people were sent out to residential schools. I’m a residential school survivor. We have to break that cycle of mental issues we’re having up there, but we don’t have mental institutions where we can go. We have to get out of the territory just to receive help. The cost of living and the cost of airplanes are so high, we can’t afford to go. There are elders being sent from Nunavut to Ottawa to go to an elder facility because we don’t have an elder facility in Nunavut. There are 25 communities in Nunavut, and you will not find an elder centre in any one of them. That’s the hardest thing.
Your children can go to any place they want to attend. We have two facilities in Arctic Bay. If you’re under 13, you’re out of luck. There’s no recreation set for them. The population of Nunavut, under 25 is the highest, yet there’s nothing for them. We have elders running away from their own homes because they are scared because their grandkids or kids want drug money.
That’s not right. We should treat our elders better than how they’re being treated. They went through so much just to raise us and they saw their children being forced to move out of the territory to get an education, yet no one said sorry to them for a relocaton of people. Imagine your parents move to another community so that community can be called Canada, yet no one cares where they are, as long as it’s part of Canada.
We’re partly Canadian but we’re so left out from a lot of stuff. The cost of living can be 400 per cent higher than what you’re paying. The Canadian dollar is not the same as the Canadian dollar up North. That breaks my heart. We’re part of Canada. It’s like we’re abandoned people up there. I don’t want to say that, but we need help and it’s hard to get help. You heard the elders saying we just lost an elder two days ago. We’re losing our living encyclopedia people. It’s very sad.
I would like to say thank you for hearing my concerns. I would like to thank everyone else who spoke here as well. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to thank all the witnesses for giving us a picture of the state of crisis Nunavut is in, and it is now facing another massive social change that is sure to have negative impacts.
Ms. Kotierk, you spoke about a tripartite committee that’s been established to look at treatment centres for Nunavut and about the importance of having community-based mental health and wellness programs, as the witnesses have outlined.
We’re on the eve of making marijuana legal in Canada. It’s a high priority of the federal government. A lot of people in Nunavut I’ve spoken to say, “We’re not ready. We don’t have the facilities.” Mr. Shooyook talked about that.
Can you tell us, how far along are you with the federal government? I didn’t see anything in the last budget for Inuit mental health, wellness and treatment. Are you optimistic that working with Health Canada and the GN we’re going to have something in place as we move towards adding yet another big social impact in Nunavut following the dog slaughter, the residential schools and the impact of alcohol? Are we going to have something in place in Nunavut? Are you optimistic about that from your work in the government agencies?
Ms. Kotierk: Thank you for the question. Specifically in terms of the working group that I referred to, I know that they’ve been discussing a five-year timeline in terms of having a treatment trauma centre in five years. The first priority is to build capacity at the community level to provide supports that are culturally appropriate and linguistically accessible. There are a number of programs in some of our communities that have been using Inuit ways and Inuit languages to build capacity among Inuit counsellors. That has been the focus right now. If there was interest and an infusion of resources, we would appreciate seeing facilities much sooner, but I think given the limitations that we have, I think that’s what realistically we’re aiming towards.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you for being here. I lived and worked in Nunavut in the 1990s and again in the 2000s, Kimmirut, Iqaluit. I have seen some of the challenges. In fact I was just looking at research in Pond Inlet that saw even in the 1980s that 40 to 60 per cent of the 12 to 40-year-olds identified they were using cannabis products, either hashish or marijuana.
The challenge I face with Nunavut is that even with a facility in Iqaluit, you are thousands of kilometres away from other communities in the territory. It’s not like someone is driving to the facility. They may as well be going to Edmonton really.
The second part is if there are no regulations put in place, on July 1, this legislation means somebody sitting in Kimmirut could go online and mail order a marijuana product based on this legislation today.
Do you believe that the legislation should be amended to mean an Indigenous territory and community must opt in to allow that to occur, because there is no option now? If you don’t draft legislation by July 1 — I understand that’s probably not going to happen — that after July 1, people sitting in small communities start being able to mail order a marijuana product. Do you think we should change it so a territory has to opt into that being allowed versus the way it sits now?
I’ll take anybody’s response, by the way, but I know, president, you probably have a response.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Uttak: The one that you talked about, education for prevention, when the education started, our life in Nunavut started changing, especially in Igloolik. In 1959, our whole life is gone since our children started school. Our social life started to decrease. Our traditional life started to decrease. We started losing it.
In Igloolik, in Nunavik, there is a counsellor and a mental health worker, and they are working for the government. They would counsel them.
With our traditional knowledge, lifestyle and trying to keep families intact, the elders are sometimes consulted. They kept trying to help them mentally and otherwise. They stopped because there are laws that they cannot do it. That’s been preventing them from doing their job because of the laws that are in place, so they go to the elders.
Here in Nunavut, a true Inuit traditional way of dealing with social problems, we’re trying to collect information on that. We’ve been having problems because government, the social workers and the Inuit traditional lifestyle, they are decreasing. There are very few elders left. There are very few voices now. There are just very few of us who can do this, who know all the traditional knowledge.
I’m not going to stop advocating for my Inuit. My wife and I were there, and we are training them truly how to be an Inuk and about traditional knowledge. They’re in Clyde River, and I think it’s Nunavut government’s building.
Please understand where we’re coming from. Let’s have a reconciliation process with this. Let’s work together in partnership on this.
I don’t want to carry on too long. Thank you.
Mr. Shooyook: I wanted to comment with regard to education. From what I have seen, in 1967, I moved to Arctic Bay from the camp. From then, our children had to go to school, so we gave them up to the school to teach them about lifestyle in the right way. Now we have no control over that.
Since then, there are problems, right up to today. We people who live in Canada, especially Nunavut, we really need help with regard to social problems. Because of this, today there are way too many people committing suicide. They cannot cope with life. Every day we face alcoholism, drugs, suicides.
You see that I’m wearing red. It’s to support them, the murdered and missing. People are getting shot by the police because of alcohol. They are killing our people because of alcohol. We have nowhere else to turn.
I’m an elder. This traditional knowledge, I still carry it. I’m still dealing with it. There are no services for us. There’s no help for us. I’m pretty sure what I’m saying now is not going to help either.
In Nunavut, the elders are at their edge. If we lose our lifestyle, that’s it; we are definitely going to be destroyed. The most important part that we’re here for, we have no counsellors. There are a few. There are police.
But as for me, I do go for help whenever I get stuck, but I always end up not getting anything done because of the laws that are in place in front of me.
If you’re going to legalize cannabis, we’re really going to need your support. They have to build a healing and addictions centre. I know it’s going to have a big impact on our people.
Our lives are precious, our children in schools, especially. This month, I was talking with high school children who are trying to quit school, who are dropping out of school. I’ve been counselling them. There has to be something in place to help them.
In Nunavut, this is very important. We can through reconciliation. Please help people in Nunavut. They really do need help. We really need help.
We are a lot of smaller communities, I know, but this will destroy them. We really need your help. This is a very important, urgent, critical matter, because there’s nothing in place for 50 years while we were trying to create Nunavut, and with its planning.
If you could have everything in place before you legalize it up there. There are many people committing suicide because of alcohol and cannabis. This is unacceptable.
We do not want any more problems being placed in front of us, things we cannot deal with. There’s nothing in place to legalize cannabis in Nunavut. This is important. I wanted to further comment on it.
[English]
Ms. Kotierk: To Senator White’s question, first.
[Interpretation]
You can speak in Inuktitut. Thank you very much. You’re from Kimmirut and had lived in Iqaluit. Thank you.
[English]
I find the question very interesting, that would it be: can the community opt in or opt out? Should that be a choice of the community?
I think the better question would be, in my mind: Does the federal government have a responsibility for good governance and making sure that the jurisdiction that they’re going to place a priority on to implement is in a position to be able to implement whatever policy or legislation they’re going to put forward. And not only the jurisdiction in terms of the provincial and territorial governments, but also in a way that will live up to the modern treaty obligations.
In my view, at this point, the federal government has not done its due diligence to live up to Article 32 and ensure that Inuit are involved in the social and cultural policy design and development in terms of this legislation. Frankly, I think in our jurisdiction of Nunavut there are so many pressing needs. It is unfair and unfathomable that the federal government would now expect the public government, the Government of Nunavut that was created through our Nunavut agreement, through Article 4, now has the responsibility and need to prioritize this legislation because we have the drop-dead date of July 1, 2018.
Senator White: Thank you very much for that. I was in some communities in Nunavut when communities would decide whether they were without alcohol, totally limited access or full access in Iqaluit, for example. I think Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay and Rankin might have been the only places, last I lived there, that actually had drinking establishments in the local hotels.
But the communities made those decisions. Not always easy decisions. In fact, I’ve been in twice where the voting took place and it was very challenging, but the decisions were made based on whether the community was ready to handle certain situations.
I continue to hear that the communities aren’t ready. In fact, Nunavut today still doesn’t have a full residential drug treatment program, I understand. Even if it did, it would need 20, because of the — I talked about distance and very little community access.
So it’s always back to the same point: Should somebody other than the federal government be the ones making the decision whether Nunavut, Nunavummiut, are ready to take on legalized marijuana? Particularly I hear communities talk about the great gains they will have financially because they’re opening a huge factory in Smiths Falls or somewhere else. That’s not going to be a reality for Nunavut. We’re not going to see commercial grow operations in Nunavut, so there’s no financial gain, from my perspective, to this.
I guess it’s back to we’re hoping to make amendments. Do you believe in an amendment that pushes the federal government toward ensuring the community is ready to have fully accessible marijuana?
Ms. Kotierk: I think that makes sense that the community would be in a position to engage with the federal government and I think that’s what Article 32 of our Nunavut agreement states, that’s the expectation of Inuit, that they would be involved in the cultural and social program development, design and policy development. So to me that makes complete sense.
The Chair: Just before you ask your supplementary, we are at the end of our time. We have two more questioners, so if everybody could ask quick questions, we should be able to accommodate five more minutes.
Senator Patterson: You talked about the duty to consult, Ms. Kotierk. I asked a question about what the federal government had done to consult Inuit in the Senate and I was told you had had a meeting with Parliamentary Secretary Bill Blair.
Could you describe whether that was the kind of adequate consultation you believe Article 32 requires and just how that came about?
Ms. Kotierk: Thank you for that question, Senator Patterson. I was aware that you had raised a question and I was very interested in the answer that had been provided, because if I recall correctly, the answer stated there had been some consultation with Inuit Tapirisat Kanatami as well as the Government of Nunavut. At this table, I want to note that Inuit Tapirisat Kanatami is not a land claims organization; it is a national advocacy group that represents four Inuit land claims regions and each of our land claims organizations represent our Inuit in each of our regions.
The Government of Nunavut is a public government; borne out of the Nunavut agreement, yes, but still a public government. In that case Nunavut Inuit were not consulted.
I did have a brief meeting with Parliamentary Secretary Bill Blair. Is that sufficient consultation? No. At the initial meeting, that was the first time I have ever met with him. We did talk about cannabis legislation. We talked about Inuktitut. We talked about the need for addictions treatment centres. I was clear that he needs to come to Nunavut.
So in my view that is insufficient. If that were the view that was sufficient public engagement, that alarms me.
We have three regions in Nunavut because it is such a vast, extensive geography and we have presidents of three of the regions. I would think at a minimum there would be some discussion at the Inuit organization’s board meeting to give us updates on what’s happening.
I truly think that within the 25 communities in Nunavut, I know the Government of Nunavut has been doing some consultations. They’re not going to be going to every community, but I really think the federal government has a role in going with the Government of Nunavut to the communities to be in a position to answer all questions community members may have.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. They came from the heart and the spirit and I appreciate it.
I’ve worked in the North, in Manitoba, as a health provider for many years and I understand a lot of the problems that come with all the illness in our communities.
My question would be: What recommendations would you make when you look at the reconciliation model, when you look at the different regions, the isolation, the distance and the different groups up there? What would what you recommend?
Mr. Qulaut: Thank you for that question.
[Interpretation]
I’m going to answer in Inuktitut. This has been well thought out and there are many questions pertaining to it. Now as we’re starting to understand the answer to that, I don’t have any at this very moment because it’s something very new to us and there are few of us who are working on this and not really aware of the situation. Some of them know it; some of them don’t know it. There’s misunderstanding, of course, pertaining to the legislation.
With the Nunavut government being asked the same question starting last year, this is a very fast-paced process and we have to make decisions pertaining to it. So we’re just learning and we don’t have anymore time, because it’s going to be passed. Like the elder said earlier, they keep running into laws that they cannot go any further with certain things. There are many things we have to deal with. We have none. We’re too late.
I’m thinking with Nunavut Tunngavik federation and Nunavut governments and Inuit organizations have to think about this properly and consult so they can have what can be implemented will be useful for our communities. This is something new to us through the CBC News. We were never asked by the government. So that’s just my thought at the moment, if we can negotiate probably for our bodies, NTI, Nunavut government. Perhaps these two can work with the elders and other governments and probably consult with them.
So I think these are the priorities. Thank you very much for your question.
[English]
Senator Christmas: First, please accept my condolences for the loss of your young people recently. Thank you very much for the explanation about section 32. I didn’t appreciate or understand that, and I can see why that is a concern. And thank you very much for the resolution from your recent annual general meeting.
I want to confirm what I heard from the testimony from all five of you. What you are telling Canada is the legalization of marijuana will only worsen the situation in Nunavut, not only for yourselves as elders, but also for your young people, and that you’re asking Canada to postpone Bill C-45 until Canada takes some steps, hopefully through negotiations, to establish addiction treatment centres, mental health services and healing centres, not only to address the impact of the legalization of marijuana but to address the current impact of alcohol and drugs on your communities.
Those are the messages that I received this morning. Is that the message you are bringing to us? Am I hearing you correctly?
Ms. Kotierk: Senator Christmas, thank you for letting us know what you’ve heard. I’m very pleased to say that I think we were very clear on the needs that we have in our territory. The one thing I would add is that it needs to be in Inuktitut.
Senator McCallum just asked about reconciliation, and what our understanding is of reconciliation and how to achieve reconciliation.
In my view, language is paramount. When I spoke earlier, I told you that the majority of the population is Inuit; the majority of the population speaks Inuktitut. Many of our people cannot speak English. And in our homelands, people have to go into a store and they have to rely on people like me, who are bilingual, just so they can purchase cloth, just so they can purchase gas. The dignity is lost by not being able to be who you are and communicate in the language you’ve always known. I think that is detrimental to our self-identity and our foundation as Inuit.
Any programming and information coming from the federal government or any government needs to be in Inuktitut, in the way that we understand, to really achieve reconciliation. That would be my only addition.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our time. I would like to thank, on behalf of the committee members, our witnesses this morning, from NTI, President Aluki Kotierk; and as individuals, Elder Isaac Shooyook and Elder Louis Uttak. You’ve made a very compelling case.
We are now ready to hear from members of the second panel. The first group is from IndigiCo. We have three people. Only one person will be presenting. We have Mike Fontaine, Vice President; Sara Loft, Vice President; and Howard Morry, their legal counsel. You have the floor for a brief presentation if you would begin, please.
Sara Loft, Vice President, IndigiCo: My name is Sara Loft.
[Editor's Note: Ms. Loft spoke in her Indigenous language.]
I'm a Kanien'kéha from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. I’m the vice-president of business and development and corporate development for Indigenous Roots and a representative of IndigiCo.
Today I have my colleagues with me, Mike Fontaine and Mr. Howard Morry, legal counsel for IndigiCo and also a President of EDIP, which is a platform for Indigenous wealth management. I’ll allow them to introduce themselves.
Mike Fontaine, Vice President, IndigiCo: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce and present ourselves. I’m from the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba. I respectfully submit my presence to the upper chamber of our treaty partner. Thank you for being here and thank you for the time to present.
Howard Morry, Legal Counsel, IndigiCo: Thank you again for having us. We’re all going to say a little bit of our presentation and then open it up for questions. I believe, Sara, you’re going to start.
Ms. Loft: Yes. We’ve prepared some remarks and we’ll go through them now.
Bill C-45 will have a large impact on Indigenous peoples and communities. Among those impacts will be the risks to public health and safety of both Indigenous communities and municipal areas with large concentrations of Indigenous people.
Although we are dismayed at a fact that Indigenous peoples are not been included in the existing cannabis act, we will leave the analysis and mitigation of those impacts to the Indigenous communities and organizations that will be addressing the Senate committee.
We support any initiative agreed to by Indigenous leadership that gives communities the resources and the freedom to deal with local, regional and national impacts of this bill, including but not limited to revenue-sharing arrangements with Indigenous governments and communities affected by Bill C-45.
Our focus today will be on what we’ve learned from our experience in the cannabis market and the policies we believe should be adopted to put Indigenous groups in a better position to take advantage of the tremendous economic and commercial opportunities made possible by Bill C-45.
Indigenous Roots is a joint venture cannabis company in partnership be with the Cronos Group, a publicly traded company that wholly owns two licensed facilities and is currently producing 2,600 kilograms of cannabis annually; and IndigiCo, the Indigenous controlled and owned partner for branding and distribution. IndigiCo is led by former National Chief Phil Fontaine and three-time National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.
Our company is focused on Indigenous ownership and operation, providing jobs to First Nation communities and the reconciliation of Indigenous economies through wealth creation. We offer a unique business model since our platform for opportunity for Indigenous communities is through expansion permits with an existing licensed producer, providing an expedited path for investment operation and participation in the cannabis field.
Indigenous Roots was created as a medical cannabis company originally because we recognized the need to provide fair access to Indigenous peoples to alternative medicine for a number of ailments and a superior option in terms of harm reduction.
However, now that the legalization for recreational access is on the horizon, there is a tremendous opportunity for Indigenous Roots to provide quality product to this market.
Since our company announcement in December 2017, we’ve met with well over 100 First Nation communities across Canada interested in the business of cannabis. The desire to be a producer or an investor was great, but we found there were a number of issues posed to First Nations seizing the opportunity to be on the front end of the emerging sustainable market; issues we know are unique to First Nations and inhibit the right to economic dignity.
Indigenous communities and peoples need an investment body that they own and control to stimulate economic development and own-source revenues. We recognize the First Nation finance authority allows for communities to access capital for economic development. However, individual communities must complete the qualifications for certification to allow lending, which takes up to five years, but the reality is the majority of communities need economic growth immediately. Economic development to create opportunities for community members to earn a competitive income and build skills. The career opportunities within the cannabis sectors are highly trained positions with transferable skills. Positions in the fields of horticulture, security and storage, HVAC and mechanical are real careers and not menial positions we often see offered to Indigenous communities by resource development projects. Each facility can offer 20-plus permanent specialized positions.
Own-source revenues to enable Indigenous communities to fund priorities like housing, infrastructure, education, health and social programs, the underfunding of First Nation communities in many areas has been reported by the Auditor General for years. This government has committed to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations set out in the calls to action. Call to Action #92, Business and Reconciliation, point ii, reads:
Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.
This would be the right vehicle to ensure this commitment is addressed in legislation.
Having the right instrument or vehicle to participate in and benefit from the production, distribution and sale of cannabis. Regional and local production and distribution of cannabis leads to jobs, training and spin-off economic opportunity, along with opportunities for regional generation and own-source revenues. The ability to be a licensed producer provides the means to produce and/or distribute cannabis outside of reserves or traditional Indigenous territories, leading to substantially larger positive participation in the economy, wealth generation and own-source revenues, along with enhanced opportunities for jobs and training.
Further to this, access to distribution of cannabis to international markets and the opportunity for exports will create even greater wealth creation. The ability for Indigenous peoples to generate wealth removes any barriers caused by poverty, including the ability to nurture and care for our children at the same levels enjoyed by the rest of Canada.
Currently our partners have obtained licences to sell and cultivate in Germany, Israel and Australia. This is opening up the markets in New Zealand and East Asia. According to the World Drug Report 2016, there are over 182-million global cannabis consumers, driving a market estimated to be in excess of over $150 billion annually. We need to ensure Indigenous communities have the right tools to develop expertise and be major players in the global market.
Like I had said, we’re presenting on behalf of IndigiCo, the Indigenous arm of Indigenous Roots, but our partner, Michael Gorenstein, the CEO of the Cronos Group, wanted to reiterate that the Cronos Group is committed to our relationship with Mr. Fontaine, his team and Canada’s Indigenous people who are a marginalized segment of society.
We want to see opportunity brought to communities and for the federal government to address equity issues. We are committed to reconciliation and are pleased to be a part of a project that will bring real change to Indigenous communities.
Mr. Morry: I’m going to pick up this part of the presentation. We have identified some obstacles to take advantage of the opportunities in Bill C-45 and to give you some specific proposals.
First of all, in terms of the obstacles capturing the opportunities inherent in Bill C-45, there are five of them: Lack of experience of Indigenous people in the production, distribution and sale of cannabis; the difficulty of getting licences to grow or distribute cannabis, especially in a competition by Indigenous groups with large established wealth finance companies; lack of access to expertise and capital; also, Indigenous peoples are mindful of the economically limiting notion of just really in case law getting a moderate livelihood simply out of some of the rights they do have; the proposed federal excise tax on cannabis sales, a portion shared with municipal and provincial governments, won’t be shared with Indigenous governments.
In terms of proposals, we’re proposing the Government of Canada implement the following recommendations to increase the likelihood that Aboriginal communities and peoples can stimulate economic development and generate own-source revenues from the cannabis industry being created in effect by Bill C-45. There are four of them.
First of all, preferential licensing for Aboriginal-owned and controlled groups to grow and distribute cannabis. Secondly, setting aside procurement and policies in this market for Aboriginal-owned and controlled groups. In other words, where licences are granted to non-Indigenous groups, that they have Indigenous groups participate. Creating a fund from taxes and duties generated from cannabis sales; provide grants, contributions, loans and loan guarantees to Aboriginal-owned and controlled groups that can be used to fund development growth and working capital and to finance investment acquisitions and joint ventures in this market.
We can tell you from the experience that IndigiCo has had that simply participating in this market in the pre-development stages has meant that Mr. Fontaine in particular has had to dip into his own funds to a large extent to fund the early development. Again, you’re competing with very large companies, so having a fund to help in the early development as well as growth and working capital would be extremely helpful.
Finally, developing an Indigenous relations arm to help cannabis legalization and regulation secretariat. So creating a new group as part of Health Canada.
Mr. Fontaine: Thank you. We at IndigiCo Limited Partnership believe the legalization of cannabis is an unprecedented opportunity to do many things right. First Nations have been part of international trade and commerce for millennia. Having said that, the circumstances we find ourselves in now is we have never agreed to be marginalized either economically or socially, and we simply cannot wait any longer for our treaty partner to catch up to our needs.
Indigenous peoples also have the opportunity to generate revenues at the same rate as non-Indigenous entities, not as ancillary service providers but as owner operators. From what we’ve seen and heard across Canada, we don’t feel it necessary or productive from a macroeconomic sense to drill this discussion down on this bill to a rebate arrangement, like tobacco or fuel sold within a reserve boundary. This bill should be very much about the real chance to be finally equal participants in an industry as a whole from seed to sale.
We also believe this bill is a perfect opportunity for Canada to fund and provide research on cannabis. We’ve lobbied Health Canada to provide research funding focused on medical application with an eye on harm reduction. We’ve had two meetings with Health Canada. At our last one, our request was turned down because there was no data to support research, and the only way to obtain data was through research. So we had this conundrum of a chicken and egg situation. So that provides some difficulty not only for us but for the rest of Canada, where a lot of information that’s provided and expressed either publicly or in-house or even in the Senate, most of it is opinion-based, not fact-based. I think if we had the ability to provide our own empirical evidence, we as a country here in Canada, if we had our own committed research to cannabis, that a lot of facts would become facts instead of opinions.
Thank you. We at IndigiCo limited partnership believe that the legalization of cannabis is an unprecedented opportunity to do many things right. First Nations have been part of an international trade and commerce for millennia. Having said that, the circumstances we find ourselves in, we never agreed to be marginalized either economically or socially, and we simply cannot wait any longer for our treaty partner to catch up to our needs.
Indigenous peoples also have the opportunity to generate revenues at the same rate as non-indigenous entities, not as ancillary service providers but as owner operators. We think too from what we’ve seen and heard across Canada, we don’t feel it necessary or productive from a macroeconomic sense to drill this discussion down to a rebate discussion like tobacco or fuel sold within a reserve boundary. This bill should be very much about the real chance to be a finally equal participants in an industry as a whole from seed to sale.
We also believe this bill is a perfect opportunity for Canada to fund and provide research on cannabis. We’ve lobbied Health Canada to provide research funding focused on medical application with an eye on harm reduction. We’ve had two meetings with Health Canada and our last one we heard that — our request was turned down because there’s no data to support research, and the only way to obtain data was through research. So we had this conundrum of a chicken and egg situation, so that provides some difficulty not only for us but for the rest of Canada where a lot of information that’s provided and expressed either publicly or in the house or even in the Senate, most of it is opinion-based, not fact-based. I think if we had the ability to provide our own empirical evidence, we as a country here in Canada, if we had our own committed research to cannabis, a lot of facts would become facts instead of opinions.
That’s a key opportunity that Canada can’t miss. This is a perfect time now to provide research on cannabis so that we can continue to be the world leader in cannabis. Right now, Canada sets the gold standard for the rest of the world as far as cannabis distribution and medical cannabis in particular.
This bill is, without a doubt, a generational opportunity for creating economic dignity for Indigenous people. I don’t think at any point now, there is no more need to perpetuate this romantic notion that Indigenous peoples are historic curiosities wandering aimlessly on this terra nullius hunting and gathering as we go. That just has to end. What better time than now?
The wealth we create in this opportunity addresses so many different things that our treaty partner is unable to do either through legislation or through a bureaucracy that actually controls and determines the fate of a race. That’s an anachronism that has to absolutely end. With our own wealth, that’s not coming from largesse of government, transfer payments or program funding. This is an ideal opportunity for wealth to be generated in a way that is not going to hurt the sensitivities of a bureaucracy. It’s absolutely high time. I apologize for using that term. No pun was intended. I just want to be clear about that. It just came out.
We have been waiting for 150 years for our treaty partner to honour their obligations, not in some haphazard manner, but there are a whole number of things that need to be done, and I think now, it’s a generational opportunity that can’t be missed, should be embraced and facilitated as best as possible.
We’ve heard too in our presentations across Canada that cannabis can be a bad thing. On one hand I agree and on another I dispute it. From what I’ve read and from things that we’ve heard from the public at large, bad things cause addictions and kill people. There’s no evidence anywhere that cannabis has killed one person. The amount necessary to create a lethal dose in an individual is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1500 pounds ingested in 15 minutes. I don’t think anybody is that committed to testing the theory. I don’t think anybody wants to.
If we’re talking about harm, the ultimate harm we’re very familiar with is a lethal incidence of a substance. We’re talking now about a country-wide opioid crisis, not from cannabis but from pharmaceuticals. We’re talking substances like fentanyl where micrograms are causing lethal overdoses. That’s one thing this bill can help address, because from a medical usage perspective, anything non-addictive, with no chance of physical dependence that can replace opioids is preferable and should be the norm and not the exception.
From a user perspective, the products should be produced in medical-grade facilities and will be free from contaminants. It’s a far greater proposition than black market grow ops operating in some clandestine location with zero health controls and zero interest in the health of the user or the cleanliness of the product.
The Chair: Mr. Fontaine, we have two other witnesses. If you could briefly summarize and conclude shortly.
Mr. Fontaine: Okay. That’s catching me a little off guard because we noticed that our relatives from the North —
The Chair: There’s a total of one hour for the witnesses that are slotted for this panel. Typically each group had about 10 minutes but with elders, of course, there’s an exception, I believe. In total they used an hour. We were a bit late getting started.
Mr. Fontaine: I had no idea about that. I apologize. I’ll summarize this.
We can easily be paralyzed by process here, but it’s important to note if we follow the process of public consultation about this, our people usually and generally have legislation imposed on them and now there’s an opportunity to provide a dual stream type situation where the business side of this bill can coexist and should coexist with the political side. If we wait for the political side to play out, the opportunity could be lost.
If there’s going to be a closing statement here and we’re running out of time, what I haven’t heard articulated formally in any situation here is that Canada finally with this bill has the opportunity to participate as an equal partner with Indigenous peoples and produce a situation where wealth can be generated without acrimony.
We’ve seen in the pipeline discussions anytime there’s an activity that’s centred on the extractive industries, there’s nothing but acrimony, protests, arrests and gnashing of teeth. This way, you’re not going to run into the same hurdles and problems the extractive industries run into. You’re not harming lands. You’re not harming water. You’re not creating a situation where the future health of an ecosystem is going to be damaged. I think if we can do that and still create wealth and opportunity for First Nations to have economic dignity, then I think Canada should embrace it, absolutely without question, full stop.
The Chair: Thank you. We have two more witnesses. We have via video link, which I believe is ready to go, we have Chief Ross Perley appearing as an individual. We also have Chief Adams-Phillips from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. Chief Perley, can you hear us? It doesn’t look as though that is working. While we work on that, we will ask Chief Adams-Phillips to speak.
Chief April Adams-Phillips, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne: Good morning. I have a brief statement. Akwesasne and the First Nations are not ready to accommodate the legalization of cannabis. Currently Akwesasne is a unique border community where its jurisdictional makeup make it a target for illegal activity. We are trying to reduce the negative perception of our community and not increase the opportunities.
The one question we have is will the province’s funding support be proposal-driven? If not, how will the allocation be distributed? Are you going to go by our membership numbers? As we are one of the five large First Nations, we need support more than a smaller community. Funded support for harm reduction in addition to what is already provided, especially for mental health. We don’t want to be caught in the middle of the province and the feds for funding while in three to five years First Nations communities will see the negative impacts of the health and mental health issues stemming from cannabis.
Currently Tyendinaga has over 33 dispensaries which are unregulated. Increased stressers on the services of community health. We need support to develop the laws, regulations, distribution and
We need support to develop the laws, regulations, distribution and point of sale, especially for online purchases, which can be made by minors. Where are the safeguards?
Cannabis is supposed to be taxed the same as the HST with alcohol and tobacco. We are not your tax collectors. In the tax structure for cannabis on First Nations territory from a First Nation buyer to a First Nation seller, there would be no HST. What about the excise tax? Will First Nations be exempt? The excise tax is usually collected at the production stage. How will this affect First Nations?
At this moment, Akwesasne has developed the cannabis working task group to start addressing the issues stemming from the legalization of cannabis. Currently, we have a community survey which has a closing date of March 29. Our survey is trying to gauge the community on how they feel about the legalization of cannabis and currently what kind of information they have and their understanding of it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll begin with questions from the senators.
Senator Boniface: Welcome and thank you very much for your presentations. I have two questions, if I can start with Mr. Fontaine.
In terms of your own consultations from a business development perspective, are you finding in First Nation communities the embrace of this opportunity is split by region or by north/south? What are your findings? Some of what we’ve read is some of the southern communities are more supportive, but the northern community is not. I’m interested if in your consultations, if you’ve found similar.
Mr. Fontaine: I think generally and specifically everybody we’ve met with has been receptive to the notion of cannabis from a marketable product perspective. We haven’t found a similar situation which would be different than the experience of the Senate or the federal government or the provincial government, where there’s opposition to certain things, because we’re not involved in legislation. We’re not involved in the obligation to provide consultation to peoples or governments. So what we know and experience is completely different.
I can say clearly and accurately that from coast to coast, north and south, everybody has been receptive to this point with our presentation.
Senator Boniface: Second question, if I may.
The Chair: If we could wait, we do have the video link. Then we’ll do questions after.
We have a video link with Chief Ross Perley. Are you able to hear me? I can see you.
Chief Ross Perley, as an individual: Yes. I can hear you.
The Chair: Please go ahead.
Mr. Perley: For me, the government has missed the opportunity here, witness legislation, by not including First Nations. Here in my community of Tobique First Nation, we’re supportive of the use of cannabis for medical purposes. We have Indian residential school survivors who use it for help with arthritis and pain. It’s a good alternative to opioids.
From a business perspective, we would like to have the opportunity to participate. I think there are other communities across Canada that feel the same way. It’s a missed opportunity to give communities a revenue source to offset a lot of the problems we have in our communities, such as housing. Some communities don’t have water or are lacking infrastructure, have a high suicide rate. If we were involved in a vibrant industry such as cannabis, a lot of those problems would give the community the revenue it needs to solve a lot of those problems. I feel it’s a missed opportunity and hopefully the government will change its position on that and include a piece of legislation for First Nations.
Even if you guys include an incentive for industry to partner with First Nations, that would go a long way with helping the hardships in our communities.
The Chair: Thank you. Have you concluded your comments?
Mr. Perley: I’m not sure if there are any questions.
The Chair: Yes. We can open the floor to questions now.
We had a question from Senator Boniface.
Senator Boniface: My question is actually for Chief Adams-Phillips. I particularly appreciate your comments. I don’t know if you were here earlier when Senator White asked a question of the previous panel, but let me put the same question to you.
Would it be beneficial to have an amendment in this bill that would allow Indigenous communities to opt in to the legislation if they so chose, and at what point they were ready, as opposed to the legislation applying effective the date of the legislation going forward?
Ms. Adams-Phillips: Yes, I think it would. It would give them time and a better understanding.
The Chair: Chief Perley, did you hear the question?
Mr. Perley: Yes. I think an opt-in is a good solution because I know not all communities are supportive. Giving them the option to opt-in is definitely a step in the right direction.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much for your presentations.
Mr. Morry, I was very interested in your four recommendations. I was trying my best to keep up with you. I was wondering if you could take some time to walk us through it in some detail. I know you sort of listed it, but I was very interested in those four recommendations. Could I ask you to elaborate, perhaps?
Mr. Morry: Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
The first recommendation was preferential licensing for Aboriginal-owned and controlled groups to grow and distribute cannabis. First of all, the licensing on the growth side is federal; to a large extent, on the distribution side, it’s provincial. If Aboriginal-controlled groups were given either a carve-out or preferential treatment in terms of licensing, it would be easier to find partners, for example, having that licence. As it is right now, Indigenous groups have to seek out a partner who has a licence or can get a licence, and there’s not even necessarily a set-aside, which is the second point we had, which is sustaining a procurement and set-aside policy in the market for Aboriginal controlled and owned groups.
If you say option one is the Indigenous group gets licensed, option two are the groups that get licensed have to invite the participation of Aboriginal groups in the licensing. I can tell you, senator, that there is a precedent for that, for example, in Manitoba, which recently granted five licences and required Aboriginal participation in the ownership of the licensees.
So number one is preferential licensing.
Number two is procurement where there’s a requirement either for the group which has gained a licence, that they have ownership participation and/or, let’s just extend that a little bit further, that in their procurement, that they, let’s say, have some of the same requirements the federal government would have in terms of set-asides for First Nations and/or Indigenous groups, Aboriginal groups.
The third one that we had, senator, was creating a fund from taxes and duties generated from cannabis sales to provide grants, contributions, loans, loan guarantees to Aboriginal-owned and controlled groups.
As it is right now, the taxes are not — the excise taxes will not be shared, at least directly, with Aboriginal groups. This is not to say there shouldn’t be sharing. In fact, our position would be that there should be sharing. That is something we said in the presentation. But specifically with respect to the economic development and wealth generation part of this that Mike Fontaine was referring to, really being able to develop own-source revenues from the cannabis industry, there are a number of barriers to entry. We already talked about the licensing, but even going beyond that, just having the funds to be able to go through a predevelopment, development, and growth stage.
We can tell you our experience, not just in cannabis but across the board for First Nations, it’s very difficult to get that early stage financing. Sara Loft, my colleague, did talk about the fact we do have the First Nations Finance Authority, that some First Nations are able to access money but it takes a long time to qualify, a long time to access the money.
Our recommendation is to set aside a pool of funds from the excise taxes to help Indigenous groups take advantage so they can participate as owners, as economic participants in the cannabis industry.
The final one was towards development an Indigenous relations arm to Health Canada, a Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat.
I’ll ask my colleague Sara Loft who suggested this one. Did you want to add to that? This is the Indigenous relations.
Ms. Loft: Well, I think as a company we had discussed this recommendation just to lend as a support for Indigenous communities who want to get into medical cannabis, to have that direct line to the Health Canada Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat, either medical or recreational. What we’re noticing and what we’ve experienced is that a lot of communities are interested; they just don’t know where to start. Or they have many questions they want answered and really they have nowhere to turn or they don’t know who to contact to get answers to those questions.
We thought it would be beneficial for Indigenous communities that are going to get into the business or wish to get into the business to have a direct contact within the legalization and regulation secretariat.
Senator White: Thanks to the witnesses. Just for clarity, because we’ve had many community representatives and leaders, if you could explain, Mr. Fontaine, that you’re actually the vice-president of a corporation, not of a First Nation or other Indigenous group; is that correct?
Mr. Fontaine: That’s correct.
Senator White: In relation to your comments, and because we’ve had a couple — three weeks of speeches given, a lot of research done, I just want to read a couple of comments to you and ask you whether you’ve done research.
In Colorado, in the last three years, marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 48 per cent. 20 per cent of all traffic deaths, marijuana-related, compared to 10 per cent six years ago. Marijuana-related emergency department visits increased almost 50 per cent. Colorado youth now rank number one in the nation for marijuana use, 74 per cent higher than the national average. Colorado college aged group 62 per cent higher than the national average, also number one. Adults now rank number one in the nation for marijuana use, 104 per cent higher than the national average.
So when you say nobody has ever died from marijuana use, I have to say, after 32 years in policing I’ve seen a lot of death as a result of people who use marijuana.
So what research are you using?
Mr. Fontaine: Thanks for the question. At face value it seems like it’s a tough one, it’s a hard one, but Ottawa isn’t Colorado and Manitoba isn’t Colorado. I think we have different circumstances, different points of view and entirely different forms of government than we do in Colorado. I welcome the statistics. Absolutely, without question, I welcome the statistics, but we don’t have that here.
The experience we have in Canada as far as statistical incidences of harm — or in the cases you mention, of tragedy — we don’t have that.
If we had the ability to get past a statement and get past an opinion or such it would further our ability as citizens of either our First Nations or a citizen of Canada to determine for ourselves if the product is fine. If it’s going to be something where we compare to alcohol, to tobacco, I can quote statistics on how many deaths are caused by smoking. I know people who have died from impaired drivers or from impaired driving.
To ask me what statistics I am basing it on, that’s a little bit of an unfair question.
Senator White: Mr. Fontaine, I think actually what’s unfair is that you came in here and you made a statement that you know of no cases where somebody has died as a result of marijuana use. My concern is that we’ve had elders and community leaders who have given evidence talking about what’s happened to them and their concerns — I’ll wait until you’re finished, Mr. Morry, thanks.
You made the statement. I didn’t make it. You actually made it sound like you had evidence you wanted to present to us. That’s not evidence at all. It’s your opinion. I appreciate your opinion. In fact, maybe I think we should legalize it as well. Who knows. My concern, though, is the evidence being presented and the evidence we’ve looked at for months absolutely doesn’t connect with the evidence you’ve tried to present here today. I think that’s unfair to the people watching and to the elders and community leaders that we had presenting to us today.
That’s not a question. That’s a statement. Thanks.
The Chair: Just as a point of clarification with regard to that, I think, Mr. Fontaine, what you were talking about was comparing toxicity, the overdose, the dose at which a particular drug will kill you. What we were talking about earlier was that the ingestion of the drug causes impairment, which sometimes can lead to death. So that’s just a point of clarification.
Senator White: I don’t think he has the credentials to present evidence on toxicity either, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Ms. Loft: I just wanted to add. In our research and in the meetings we’ve been having, we’ve also read that in Colorado, where cannabis is legalized, that opioid use has been cut more than 50 per cent and also the same with alcohol.
We could go through statistics and it could be there are higher rates of impaired driving with use of cannabis because the cannabis use is higher, but the opioid use is lower and the alcohol use is lower too. Statistics, we know, can be skewed in many, many different ways.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here.
I wanted to ask Ms. Loft and Mr. Fontaine specifically: In your presentations and as you went through the communities, and with your expertise in this area, what’s the business advantage you see that First Nations and Indigenous communities would be able to have that would make them successful in the production of marijuana?
Do you see it that there could be tax incentives through reduced excise or through rebates of excise and so on for companies to bring capital and expertise and so on to the community? Is it a discounted operating play, from your point of view, or are there geothermal opportunities for greenhouses in communities that are being talked about? What is it specifically?
This is a wonderful new multi-billion-dollar industry, but it really feels to me like the California gold rush, that we’re going to have a bunch of losers in addition to some winners, and a bunch of money is going to get made and a bunch of money is going to get lost.
Tell me what you’ve noticed or observed about the communities that says this is a compelling reason why this particular industry will be good for Indigenous communities.
Ms. Loft: You’ve touched on a lot of important points, and it’s probably all of the above when we are talking about the communities and the opportunities. We have some communities we’ve met with that already have existing greenhouses that they’re using for other products, for agriculture, and they would like to see that used to grow cannabis, because with cannabis, if you can produce low and sell high, they see the profit margin there.
I’d say, without a doubt, every community we’ve met with is looking at the bigger picture, not growing product to sell locally in their community but, rather, national or globally.
Like I said, because we’re a licensed producer, we export to Germany and Israel, and soon Australia as well. There is a market and a demand there, especially when we’re faced with the fact that the supply for cannabis right now can even meet the medical legalization. Once it becomes recreational, there’s a wider market, and there’s going to be a supply and demand imbalance there.
I believe the communities we’ve met with see the economic opportunity to better their community, and they’re also looking at the training and jobs.
It’s not going to work for every community. We’ve also met with communities that say, “We’re interested in investment, but we don’t have the manpower here. The reality is that we can’t even spare the land to build a facility, but we’d like to get involved in the business as a shareholder or an investor.”
Mr. Morry: If I can add one quick thing, senator, to your question. It’s a very important part of this, and that is there are more and more Indigenous communities seeing the distinction between economic development and wealth generation. Economic development being more local, creating jobs, growing the economy, training, capacity building. Wealth generation can take place there but can also take place elsewhere.
I would say that in terms of Indigenous communities taking advantage of this market, some of it will be economic development, but there won’t be a lot of that, because there are not going to be growth facilities in many communities, for example. There may be some. In terms of distribution, there may be some in Indigenous communities, but the opportunity would be more in getting licensed in set-aside opportunities, the spinoff benefits being part of the ecosystem, if you will, of the cannabis industry.
You raise an excellent point in terms of winners and losers. That will definitely be the case. Certainly by putting aside some money and providing access to expertise, or at least being able to afford expertise, Indigenous communities can participate in the industry, again either as owners and/or as businesses taking advantage of opportunities, but not all those opportunities will be local.
Senator Tannas: If I hear you, Ms. Loft, the hundred-odd communities, how many of them are operating greenhouses today, did you notice?
Ms. Loft: I think maybe around three or four.
Senator Tannas: So there might be, if we use those statistics, 3 or 4 per cent of 600-odd First Nations communities that would have greenhouse capacity today. So we’re probably talking more about what you’re talking about, Mr. Morry, which is creating franchises that First Nations communities could own and award, as they see fit, for financial reward as opposed to jobs or economic development on reserves.
Mr. Morry: I think you put your finger on it. It’s so critical, because the distinction is own-source revenues, which is terminology used in Indigenous communities.
I don’t want to say versus economic development, but if you segregate it — I happen to be the president of a company of service providers across Canada that created a platform for Indigenous communities for just that purpose, to help them access expertise and capital for own-source revenue opportunities to systematically grow own-source revenues. One of the key insights across the country that the service providers and Indigenous communities had was that if you’re tied to the kind of economic development paradigm that really was transferred from INAC back in, let’s say, 1980 or so, then you’re going to be stuffing that turkey with all sorts of things that are really not local in nature.
Senator Tannas: What’s the number that you would recommend? If we were going to put an amendment in or something to say X per cent of all federal manufacturing licences should be given to Indigenous owned or 50 per cent owned or controlled, et cetera, that those licences should be given to Indigenous communities. What would be the right percentage, in your mind?
Mr. Morry: We didn’t come with that number, actually. That’s a good question.
Senator Tannas: The population is 5 to 8 per cent. Is that the right number? Should it be higher?
Ms. Loft: Ultimately, I think we would like to see higher. We would recommend 20.
Mr. Morry: I think, senator, in determining that number, which is really in your bailiwick, I would say population is one way to look at it. Another way is to look at the underdevelopment of own-source revenues and economic development for First Nations and say, “Can we put a thumb on the scale a little bit here?” rather than simply benefiting — I don’t want to say plain vanilla corporations, et cetera — is there a way to encourage and maybe mandate the participation of Indigenous communities in that economy, and maybe that’s more than the 5 to 8 per cent you suggested.
Senator Tannas: Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I look at the two different radiants of who wants what. There’s the economic opportunity, and the other extreme side is the increase of harm in communities. It’s very difficult for me to get a balance of what is the important issue here.
I’ve worked in the North for many years, and I have seen that the health of our people is decreasing, that there are so many harms. You look at this bill, and there’s been a lack of consultation, which is disrespectful to the different governance systems that are in place in Indigenous communities. In this, the low-income people will be the hardest hit because they don’t have the money to spend on marijuana. They don’t have the money to spend on cigarettes or alcohol, but they do because it’s a coping mechanism. I understand it. I’ve gone through it.
If you could comment on how we can resolve this issue, because you’re talking from two viewpoints and I would like some comments back.
Mr. Fontaine: Thank you, senator, for the inquiry and the question.
I have a tremendous amount of appreciation for disadvantage in general and disadvantaged people more specifically. I do believe the notion of coping mechanisms and the need for a coping mechanism arises from circumstances that aren’t necessarily caused by an individual, but in certain cases it’s a systemic, almost a chronic-type situation where being marginalized creates a lot of challenges that aren’t necessarily experienced by other people.
That is, blaming the victim for the circumstances they find themselves in isn’t productive or helpful. I do agree that at first blush the ability to access something with psychoactive effects has some inherent assumptions of greater harm. If it comes down to a situation where a person is having to cope, as you said, they’re going to be taking something from somewhere else in order to access a product. Having said that, without cannabis, people would do that with alcohol and with other drugs, such as legal drugs and prescription drugs, which are also available to people who need to cope with their particular circumstance.
In my experience — and I’ve been across Canada as well — poverty is endemic in our people. If there was less poverty, there would be less need to cope with not being able to feed your children, or to provide proper health care, or to send your child to school, or being forced to look after a parent or a grandparent and not have the financial means to provide them with a certain level of dignity that our loved ones require.
Having said all of that, if people had more money, there would probably be less need to cope, but we don’t know that right now because we don’t have the evidence to say if you had more money you wouldn’t have this. We do know that there are obligations that aren’t met by our current treaty partner.
Mr. Morry: To add to that as well, as Mike was saying, we began this presentation by saying we’re not speaking to the harm reduction. We’re leaving that to Indigenous communities. But we did say — and I think we should reinforce this — that we don’t believe you should compromise one iota on harm reduction. In fact, Indigenous communities have to be given the tools to deal with it, whether it’s resources or otherwise.
At the same time, if this is proceeding, and if there is going to be a recreational as well as a medical industry, then our point is simply that First Nations and Indigenous communities more generally need to be able to participate in that market and to do so they need some support. If you said from zero to a hundred, what emphasis would be put on harm reduction, the answer is 100. If you said from zero to a hundred, what emphasis would be put on providing economic opportunity and being able to participate in own-source revenue, the answer is 100 .
If the question is how to balance the two, I’ve had a lot of experience in the gaming industry as well and it’s similar there, because the gaming industry has harmful impacts on a number of communities. My experience has been the governments have dealt with that by creating a carve-out type opportunity for Indigenous communities on the economic side while requiring a set aside to deal with harm reduction. I think “there is no compromise” is our answer on either.
The Chair: It’s 11:35. We have come to the end of our time. If there are burning questions, we can proceed to second round, but first, Chief Adams-Phillips wishes to comment.
Ms. Adams-Phillips: Going back to balance, with regard to the balance, it’s difficult to say how to do that. Currently in First Nations communities, in dealing with cannabis, it’s a far reach, I would imagine, to what the province has to offer to their communities and to what INAC and the federal government has to provide to our communities.
I’m looking at this whole gamut here in front of me on how they’re going to perform, regulate and police cannabis when it becomes legal. Again, I look back at the First Nations and how short-staffed they are, the funding sources that are not available and the justice systems within. The difficult part there is we don’t want to criminalize our people when this comes to fruition. That’s the most difficult part of it. Canada is trying to decriminalize it.
I think it’s the funding and the resources we need in order for that balance to happen, and it has to happen quickly. At the same time, I don’t want to see us being put on the side and wait for the op-in also, referring to the previous senator’s comment. We are in a tough spot, and I think you need to take more time with the First Nations with regard to this new legalization of cannabis.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Carol Hopkins’ —
The Chair: We’ll be hearing from her this afternoon.
Ms. Adams-Phillips: — her partnership and her foundation, but she said that from our current First Nations context, 89 per cent of First Nations youth aged 12 to 17 entered into treatment use for cannabis on a regular basis. I’d like to see what the data provides on all First Nations about how they help their youth and what they have to offer their youth with regard to narcotics and things like that. I think that’s a good picture on the accuracy because if their level of care and harm reduction is low, that has a lot to say about what will be coming in the future. We can’t even take care of what we have now. What are we going to have in the next three to five years? We’re going to have even more on our hands.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: Chief Adams-Phillips, you mentioned that Akwesasne has a number of cannabis dispensaries, and I believe, Chief Perley, your community also has one.
My question to both of you is should First Nations have their own laws to regulate cannabis on First Nations?
Ms. Adams-Phillips: Can I correct you? Tyendinaga has 33 dispensaries on the Akwesasne.
With regard to that, yes, we do have our justice system. That’s what we need. We need the law to be amended. We do have an intoxicant law, but that needs to be amended.
Senator Christmas: What would be the benefit of First Nations having their own laws on cannabis?
Ms. Adams-Phillips: Dealing with our own people and doing it in a method with our own jurisdictions. Akwesasne is unique. We are dealing with the border, with Quebec and with Ontario. That law needs to be unique to our territory. I wouldn’t want to see our community members having to go off territory with regard to anything to do with cannabis.
We have gotten out of the negativity with things that happened in the 1990s with tobacco. We don’t want to be put back in that ring with cannabis.
Senator Christmas: Chief Perley, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Perley: I have a couple of comments. For us, we develop our own community, so we don’t have to follow provincial law. For us, we consider ourselves sovereign, so we believe in our own law. We create our own laws and regulations. We would rather regulate these types of things, like gaming and cannabis, ourselves than the provincial government. We feel we can do a better job at it.
I want to go back to a couple questions by senators. One was on some of the losses that the cannabis industry comes with. I think one of the biggest losses is organized crime. Organized crime with legalized cannabis is going to take a hit. So if you want to talk about losses in our community, organized crime is going to take a huge loss if we start regulating and licensing cannabis.
Also, when it comes to a fair equity, I know Sara said 20 per cent, but I think it depends on the community and what they’re willing to invest. If the community comes up with a big investment, they should have their fair share of equity, even ownership, if that’s the case. I know that’s something we’re interested here in Tobique, so I just wanted to put that out there.
The Chair: Thank you.
We now have panel three to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-45, the cannabis legislation. Our final witness for this morning, from the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association, is Marilee Nowgesic, Executive Director. I probably didn’t pronounce your name correctly. You have a few minutes to make a presentation, followed by comments from the senators. Please proceed.
Marilee Nowgesic, Executive Director, Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association: Thank you very much. Before I begin, I’d like to recognize this unceded territory of the Algonquin nations on whose land we have this meeting. I’d also like to pay my respects to my elders and my ancestors, past and present, who have guided my journey here today.
I also want to acknowledge the territory from where my strength and my traditional teachings are derived, Fort William First Nation near Thunder Bay, Ontario.
I’d like to thank you for inviting me here to this presentation here today. As you know, the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association is the longest-standing Indigenous health organization for over 43 years in Canada and is governed by a board of directors whose mission is to improve the health of First Nations, Inuit and Metis people.
At the current time, there is an estimated 8,000 Indigenous nurses in Canada. Many more are required and will be needed to adequately respond to the emerging health needs and critical environments. In 2016, CINA, formerly called the Aboriginal Nurses Association of Canada, signed a partnership accord with the Canadian Nurses Association that reinforces the commitment of both associations to collaborate on advancing Indigenous health and Indigenous nursing needs and to address the gaps between the health of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians.
In addition to providing advocacy and support to the members of CINA, we also undertake research and policy development. CINA welcomes this opportunity to address the impacts of Bill C-45 and other acts and legislation that are regulated or legislated by Bill C-45 as one of the key areas of advocacy and policy work.
CINA would require resources to design and deliver a national survey. As we have already participated with our partners at the Canadian Nurses Association, they have already done a national survey, but this was with the Canadian population at large where they have done a Nanos poll looking at education or awareness of cannabis use, whether medical or recreational, among Canadians. This survey was based on telephone and hard call interviews to various households based on a six-digit postal code. As we know, in First Nations and Indigenous communities, it could be very hard to tag a household.
We would like to assess the readiness for legalization, determine the knowledge gaps and the resources needed and collect the input on the sections of Bill C-45 that pertain to the scope of the Indigenous nurses’ workload. We know that the workload here as an Indigenous nurse is going to be heavily called upon because they are the primary health care providers. They are the first point of contact at our community levels. This will cause an added implication to their workload. I will go into more of that later.
In preparation for the impending legalization, CINA has not had the opportunity to design, develop or implement participation or consultations at the community level. In part, this gap respects the Indigenous leadership and their ability to communicate with their regional counterparts, technicians, community members and also to review the impacts on our rights as Indigenous people.
In the meantime, CINA continues to work with its partners at the Canadian Nurses Association and other external stakeholders to review the impacts of legalization and regulation as it pertains to the scope of work of our Indigenous nurses.
CINA, therefore, has the following recommendations. To strengthen the public health promotion campaign specific to Indigenous audiences, we believe that if we look at an investment that would be looking at cannabis awareness campaigns that target youth and adults, the federal government would be able to use the development of this information and disseminate relevant resources to educate the respective populations. This public health approach would enable the region to tailor public education campaigns to meet Indigenous population needs and reduce the harms associated.
Legalization is intended to remove the social harms and cost of prohibition. Each year, Canada spends more than a billion dollars to enforce cannabis possession laws. As Senator White has already mentioned, we’ve also addressed some of the Colorado research with regard to that. The federal government currently invests $46 million per year in its tobacco control strategy and there also is a tobacco cessation strategy for Aboriginal people, an amount that includes public education. This figure can be used as a guide for the required investment and public education related to cannabis.
The second recommendation regarding youth criminal penalties: sections 8(1)(c) section 2(a)(b). I won’t read it. The criminal record not only limits an individual’s ability to travel to certain countries such as the U.S., it leads to considerable social harms. Among youth, for instance, a criminal record can be a barrier to volunteer opportunities often required by their school curriculums and is a factor in scholarship decisions. A criminal record can also diminish career opportunities and contribute to poverty and poorer outcomes. Legalizing cannabis while maintaining criminal penalties for youth could disproportionately disadvantage our youth, potentially barring them to equitably advance in and contribute to society. Given evidence that 21 per cent of 15 to 19-year-olds have used cannabis in the last year, such legislation could potentially impact a large number of youths. Unfortunately, these statistics do not provide Indigenous categories or other demographics that would otherwise be important indicators.
As CNA recommended, CINA also recommends that the youth possession of cannabis not be subject to criminal penalties, that the government use restorative justice practice as the guiding principle for addressing youth possession and that such depenalization eliminate current or future repercussions for youth by removing the provision under subsections 8(2)(a) and (b).
The third recommendation regarding the promotion and sale of cannabis and cannabis accessories: Within the promotion of cannabis and cannabis accessories, there is subsection 17(6). Again, I won’t read that. CINA recommends that additional considerations need to be developed that resonate with Indigenous populations and in particular Indigenous environments. For example, utilizing it in community centres, on school grounds, at the bingo hall, at the band office or those near proximities. Who is going to regulate it? The nurse can’t be everywhere.
Sale of cannabis and cannabis accessories, section 69, related to provincially authorized selling—again, I won’t read it because it’s quite long—CINA recommends that in planning such regulation, the government should consider the best available evidence from the Indigenous nurses’ perspective, to balance the access and distribution methods that could have negative impacts on the health of individuals and groups, particularly vulnerable populations.
In addition, CINA would provide further recommendations that relate specifically to the community dynamics that alter or could magnify negative impacts. This refers to communities that are in remote or isolated regions and those communities that are required to leave their communities for medical visits, education reasons, especially our secondary students, and similar economic activities where they have to go grocery shopping. We know it’s hard for a week. Try it for three months at a time.
Our fourth recommendation, the national cannabis tracking system: Related to the establishment and maintenance of the cannabis tracking system, section 81 states that the minister may establish and maintain a national cannabis tracking system to enable the tracking of cannabis, to prevent cannabis from being diverted to an illicit market or activity and to prevent illicit cannabis from being a source of supply of cannabis in the legal market.
CINA recommends section 81 be revised to include the following subsection, that they also track sales of cannabis in relation to its proximity to the sale of alcohol. CINA further recommends this tracking system be designed in collaboration with Indigenous health care professionals to meet the principles of OCAP, ownership, control, access and possession, as defined by Indigenous leadership, organizations and other key Indigenous stakeholders.
The final recommendation is the public health support. CINA strongly reinforces the recommendations made by their partners at the Canadian Nurses Association to the federal task force on legalization, regulation and restriction of access to cannabis to learn from other jurisdictions such as Colorado and to invest in significant health and public education programs, including those related to cannabis use and driving prior to legalization.
Cannabis should not be treated in the same way as alcohol. The harms of alcohol use and current alcohol policy can be downplayed at times and should not necessarily serve as the model for cannabis policy simply because it is already established.
Additionally, cannabis is different in that there are therapeutic indications and particular formulations for medical use. Thus, medical access should not be forgotten in the wake of legalization. That’s the end of my presentation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that clear presentation. We’ll now open the floor for questions from senators.
Senator White: Thank you very much to the witness. Great to see you.
My question is going to pertain to access to addictions treatment. In Ontario, it’s about five to seven months for a 14 to 18-year-old to access treatment and a couple months longer for an adult. I’m a big believer if we know what the problem is going to be, try to implement a solution first, and I think some of your recommendations do exactly that.
Do you believe there should be dedicated funding earmarked from the taxes that will be levied on marijuana to increase access to drug treatment in particular?
Along with the education piece you talked about, but in particular to drug treatment?
Ms. Nowgesic: Thank you, senator, for the question.
As you may know, I am Nowgesic versus the Queen, the first tax case to bring the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge on tax, so I’m not sure how I would response to that.
If taxes are being collected on this, we would like to see that a fund is being set up designated to public education, prevention, promotion, intervention and treatment for all age groups. We would like to be able to — that is why we’re looking at a tracking system, so that we’re able to look at the benchmark of where we’re starting prior to legalization before it comes into our communities, because we already know — and it’s already on the ground — that some of our young women are utilizing cannabis as an antinausea agent in their first trimester of pregnancy, so therefore harm to the fetus.
We know others are using some medicinal cannabis and therefore not — where they’re not being followed by a health care practitioner, they’re not being monitored in the usage of how they’re taking in that cannabis. We are also concerned about other forms of cannabis which may be available in a household, i.e. if it’s edible, that being a harm reduction to the household so that it doesn’t become available to children.
We are also concerned because we need a benchmark in order to look at our diabetes population. If they start using it as a medicinal purpose, what will it do to their blood insulin, their blood glucose levels, to their eating habits, so on and so forth.
Senator White: Thank you very much. You have lots of concerns. I’m going to throw one more at you, if I may.
Based on your experiences, a lot of small residences, large families in our Indigenous communities, the fact that you can grow marijuana, if this legislation were to pass as it is today, do you see any concerns about the impact, whether it’s mould or remediation of mould or accessibility of young people in particular to actual plant material?
Ms. Nowgesic: We’re actually quite concerned about that, for that very reason, because we know that a lot of our First Nations and Inuit populations have high respiratory problems. We’re kind of wondering how the Indigenous populations will do grow operations, given their environment, but with First Nations we’re very concerned about how they do that when we already have housing problems and housing with high rates of mould and water and whatever it is, we know that the list is there.
I think we need to be careful of if you’re growing it, how is it going to be regulated, monitored, evaluated and tracked? Who is using it? For the use of what? Because we’re already inundated, mostly in our First Nation communities, with tracking a whole lot of things at the same time, are we going to ask what profession to also attach this on to your duties?
As nurses we also have an ethical duty to looking after the health of the people, so retract that cannabis growth in their household because they may be doing it for medicinal, but because it’s having implications on their respiratory, what other options, then, do we have as a solution? Is there a backup plan? What might that look like?
Senator White: Would you recommend an amendment to this bill that states it is not legal for personal growth within your residence but it no longer be illegal, it be decriminalized? In other words, you would not be allowed to grow four plants in your residence, but if you get caught with four plants or less, then it would be a fine system instead of a criminal charge? Would you recommend that to try and lessen the potential for people to grow in personal residences?
Ms. Nowgesic: I think that opens up the box to herding wild kittens. If you open it up just a little bit, we’re opening up a big problem. I don’t think that — as a matter of fact, this week we’re getting together with the Canadian Nurses Association to having a think tank on this very issue, on looking at what are the implications for the nurses.
Because once we, the nurses, become aware of illegal operations, illegal use, we have a duty to report. Therefore, we lose our trust and the supports that we developed within the community and we become pariahs.
Senator Boniface: First of all, thank you very much for your presentation. As we try to figure out how this bill fits, one of the discussions we had with an earlier panel is the ability of First Nation communities to opt out of the legislation or an amendment that says you’re only caught by the legislation if you opt in.
I struggle in that way, because I suspect your membership sees cannabis use in their communities today, like every other community, and that it is currently funded by organized crime, which has negative impacts. I think the experience in the communities — and I’d be interested in this from the nursing perspective — particularly if I look at northern remote communities, and Ontario as an example, what you find in communities that are “dry”, as the terminology is, you would find the price of alcohol is exorbitant and for people with addiction issues that creates all kinds of other pressures in terms of where money is spent.
I’m curious as to any sort of advice you could give this committee around exceptions for First Nation communities that would lessen the impact.
Ms. Nowgesic: Because we have no previous data to be able to refer to at this point, I think it would be premature for me to even try to address something of that magnitude.
As for the opt in and the exiting of First Nations into this legislation, through CINA, we’re more concerned with who is going to regulate that and when it becomes an admissible activity within a First Nations community, how will that be monitored, regulated, and who becomes the enforcers of those activities?
We know it’s going to be — somehow the nurses will get involved because of our professional capacity. Do we jeopardize the nurse? Do we jeopardize the nurse in regard to their safety by almost becoming a whistle-blower?
We’re trying to think of ways of how — because it’s so new and because the data is not there that’s specific to Indigenous communities and because we know what the socio-economic conditions are for most of our communities, we’re fearful of what the vulnerable population will resort to.
I could list incidences of what that could look like, but then that becomes another health implication for the nursing station.
What we need to be able to do is to have some sort of a collaborative agreement, almost a creed, between the health care providers who are sworn by the Hippocratic oath or codes of ethics, that have the ability to interact on behalf of the safety of that person, their health and well-being. Not because we want to see them penalized or the stigmas of any of the social harms that are associated with it but because we want to see that person remain as a healthy member of the community.
What happens beyond that, the nurses are therefore leery as to do we track it? Do we report it? Do we bring it to chief and council or to the regional chiefs so we don’t look like whistle-blowers? But they’re going to know where it’s coming from.
It becomes a matter of the mechanisms that are put in place. If the public is educated on what the powers, the roles and the responsibilities are going to be of the people who will be monitoring or evaluating the intake of cannabis, people can understand and better appreciate the roles and responsibilities of those health care providers and they wouldn’t infringe on those rights.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much. As you go through the new thinking, please keep in mind the lens you have today when it’s illegal — I have no doubt your communities are seeing this as an illegal market — and then what the legal market does and how that changes how that assessment takes place.
I thank you for the work that the members of your association do, because I know that it is challenging.
Ms. Nowgesic: I appreciate your comment. Thank you very much.
In regard to that, we also have to take into consideration the advisory comments of the elders of our communities and how we incorporate those into our professional scope. Thank you again, senator.
The Chair: As a supplementary to Senator Boniface’s question, I'm curious if there’s an equivalent nursing association in the U.S., for example, where you might have the similar situation where you have nurses working on a reservation in Colorado. Is there any information available you could use that would help you in your dilemma as to how to carry forward?
Ms. Nowgesic: Thank you, Senator Dyck. As a matter of fact, we are just starting to reach out to our professional partners in the U.S. in regard to how they’re dealing with this at the reservation level. We are also trying to look at other options, alternatives to cannabis for medical use, because there may be alternative herbal medicines that have the same chemical balances within them without the harmful rates of THC to the end user.
We are trying to figure out how we’re going to share that information. The Colorado situation will help us understand and for us to share those same experiences with them.
The Chair: Seeing no more questions, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Marilee Nowgesic, the Executive Director of the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association.
On our first panel this afternoon is Mr. Philip Chief, Interim Director from the Onion Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. Mr. Chief, you have the floor for a short presentation and then there will be questions from the senators.
Philip Chief, Interim Director, Onion Lake Cree Nation: First, I want to thank you in my language.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Chief spoke in his Indigenous language.]
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for giving us an invitation on behalf of the Onion Lake Cree Nation regarding this important matter. Obviously, there has been a lot to discuss in recent months with our nation. From the leadership’s standpoint, we’ve definitely looked at this carefully moving forward for not only our current generation but also future generations. With that, I will give you a brief presentation in what Onion Lake has been doing in regard to Bill C-45.
Onion Lake Cree Nation, surprisingly, was put on a list in Saskatchewan from the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority that identified Onion Lake as one of two First Nations in Saskatchewan that would be permitted to have a licence to distribute cannabis retail. We looked at this from two perspectives: Obviously from the impacts that it would have within our community and also from the business aspect.
Onion Lake Cree Nation has neither confirmed nor committed to opening retail on the reserve. Leadership, along with several different groups that have come to Onion Lake and presented different scenarios in opening retail, sat with the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming executive in terms of our view in how the announcement came in putting Onion Lake basically on a map, which we never asked for at the time.
One of the things we wanted to get cleared up with the provincial body was jurisdiction, plus the policy and procedures that would be available for First Nation retail operators within the boundaries of Saskatchewan.
As you may know, Onion Lake Cree Nation is a very treaty-oriented community. We continually fight and believe that our sovereignty stands within our Treaty 6 with the Crown. Those are aspects we continue to discuss along this route of opening cannabis retail in various options. That is, various options referring to urban land that’s situated for our community. Like other communities within Western Canada, there are treaty land entitlement communities that give them the ability to purchase fee simple land and turn it to reserve through an urban reserve creation. This can be either in rural or urban settings. There are several urban settings within Saskatchewan, namely, Regina, Saskatoon and Yorkton. This falls within the line of whole casino approach that occurred within the province of Saskatchewan.
That being said, that option is there for us. We believe we’ve not exhausted it, and we will be pursuing that route in terms of cannabis retail operation when the time comes.
As I mentioned before, certain groups on behalf of leadership have sat with these groups in their specific expertise, whether it’s manufacturing, grow ops or retail operations. We’ve had three groups. The Onion Lake chief and council have moved ahead recently to move with one group and the opportunity to create a retail operation within any one of our urban properties. That’s currently what we are seeking.
As far as educating and communicating to our band membership, we felt it was necessary for leadership to ensure all the information was there for a well-informed decision. Now we’ll be moving forward with a communication blitz beginning next month, in April, which coincides with our new fiscal year. As part of our special projects, it will be relayed out on our website, along with public forums for our community to understand what we are doing.
There have been a lot of questions from specific groups, elders, youth and educators, in terms of what is Onion Lake doing and is this something is Onion Lake should be getting into? We felt it was something we should bring to our nation for a formal approval and that is something that we continue to do today.
With that, I don’t think there is too much more I can say besides the fact that Onion Lake is logistically located between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, 50 kilometres north of Lloydminster. We straddle the border. Obviously, we don’t recognize the border — with due respect. We recognize our nation just happens to be straddling this border that was created by someone else.
We have had management forums regarding cannabis, regarding this process and on the impacts that would have as an employer. Definitely that is something that’s still a grey area for us. We have had three or four sessions already. With Onion Lake, to give you some numbers, we have about 800 to 900 staff that I oversee, along with three executive directors below my office. We manage all departments, from education, to housing, to our Onion Lake business development corporation companies.
We have had strategic sections, I guess you would say, with a local group that does our drug testing and drug policy development, and we have had proposals to change several areas of our policy to get ready and prepare for this legislation to be enacted.
One of the things for us definitely would be the recreational component of it and how it relates to people who are working on site. I think we have a good grasp, to some degree, in terms of safety sensitive positions. If people are under the influence and working in this area, we will be pursuing our policy in regard to dealing with that.
I believe that’s it. There could be a few things I have missed, but that’s it for now.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the presentation.
I understand Onion Lake will be pursuing retail operations and leaving the manufacturing or growth options for the future. Have you given consideration to the issue of the excise tax, which Chief Commissioner Manny Jules has told us has been unfairly divided between the provinces and the federal government and left First Nations out of the equation — First Nations who might want to develop grow opportunities on reserves?
Would you have any comments on, if you take that step in future, whether you should be entitled to some of the revenues that will be going to federal and provincial governments?
Mr. Chief: Yes, definitely we strongly feel we would be expecting a percentage. We haven’t come up with our game plan, but there is a plan in process to deal with this whole tax process.
The Chair: I’m curious. You mentioned the province gave Onion Lake a licence and you didn’t ask for it, and you were one of two First Nations who received such a licence. What do you think of that process?
Mr. Chief: We did ask this to the SLGA executive, and their answer was primarily they looked at it as every community with a population of over 2,500 would be eligible for a licence, and obviously they put us in that category and identified Onion Lake and another Cree nation in northern Saskatchewan called Peter Ballantyne, I believe. The two were offered this. We did ask them and basically they could have done it a little differently and consulted us, but once that happened the phone call was off the hook. Everybody was wanting to know what Onion Lake’s position was regarding this announcement. It caught us off guard because we were actually in a process of meeting different groups, but we didn’t want the cat out of the bag, so to speak, in terms of our position. That was a bit unfair in terms of the announcement that was made from their part.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you very much to the witness. I appreciate what you had to say today.
I also appreciated in particular the fact that you are going to allow the First Nation to be engaged in whatever decisions you make.
In our dialogue, we are looking at the legislation as it sits today, and some of us, anyway, will be making recommendations for amendments to the legislation.
My concern is that on July 1, should this legislation pass, as expected by many, without changes, that after July or after the legislation is passed, every individual in every community, including your community, will have access to e-orders for marijuana, so it will be shipped to their homes.
Many communities have raised concerns around the fact that they are not going to be involved in making that decision.
Would you recommend an amendment that obligates the federal government to allow community by community to either opt in or opt out of access to marijuana on their land?
Mr. Chief: Yes.
Senator White: Thank you, good.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Chief, thank you very much.
Some of the previous witnesses have mentioned that getting into the cannabis industry is not easy and that they need to find partners who had the expertise and the capital to produce and manufacture cannabis.
Did you have any difficulty finding partners who had experience in the industry, and did you have any of those barriers of getting the necessary capital?
Mr. Chief: I think there is definitely no problem in finding possible partners. They came out of the woodwork once the announcement was there for Bill C-45. And, Onion Lake, we are in a very fortunate position. As a Cree nation, we obviously have financial means of investing and moving forward in different projects, whether it’s cannabis, oil or what have you. Definitely we have looked at some consideration with some partners, and their expertise was renowned, and we feel Onion Lake will be making a very prudent choice in moving forward with our opportunity.
Senator Christmas: Did you have any difficulty navigating the application process with Health Canada?
Mr. Chief: No. I don’t think the application process even came to our table. I think we just looked at is the fact that, all right, here’s something that’s coming down the pipe and we need to be prepared and what are we going to do.
I think the leadership was very in tune with the opportunities. After the one presentation which expanded on obviously our partners to the south, our neighbours to the south, they definitely utilized and learned from their process in Denver. I think Colorado is a prime example of what can and shouldn’t happen to some degree, but also what can happen in a better way of management. That, to us, is something we really look at as a learning tool on this process.
Senator McCallum: I have two questions.
For the gaming authority that exists in Saskatchewan, are there two of them? Is there a First Nations gaming authority and one by the province?
Mr. Chief: You have Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority, which is a provincial body, which kind of oversees the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority. Now Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority was a creation out of a nation called White Bear. Back in 1992, they actually stepped up and wanted to open and legislate their own casino, and went ahead and did it without any process with the province. They followed their treaty right and inherent right, which we’ve strongly felt was the right move for them, and from that point, it forced the hand basically of the government of the day to deal with this matter, which kind of devolved in the province without really a consultation with First Nations. This was back in the 1990s, obviously, several years ago, but that’s kind of a prime example of how things could arise in terms of non-consultation. I think Chief Bernie Shepherd was chief at the time and a warrior, in our eyes, for treaty rights and economic opportunities he had seen for his nation.
They then created a body, but prior to that FSIN created a Gaming Framework Agreement between the Province of Saskatchewan and what is now called the Federation of Indigenous Sovereign Nations. That body, along with the province, agreed on terms to have a gaming framework agreement to allow native casinos to open in the province of Saskatchewan.
From that point, the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority was created, which oversees the management of all casinos in Saskatchewan.
Senator McCallum: It was the provincial gaming authority that came to you, the provincial government?
Mr. Chief: Regarding this matter?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Mr. Chief: SLGA, obviously they have the mandate for this Bill C-45, I believe. That’s how they’ve looked at it, and they are the ones who will be controlling and monitoring this aspect.
Senator McCallum: Would this relationship with the province offer you the chance to be involved in setting up the business? When you have agreement with a body, there is usually a consent process that goes with it, and they give you all the information related to the business. At the time they offered it to you, did they talk to you about the excise tax and how they were going to be dealing with you later?
Mr. Chief: At the end of our meeting with Jim Engel, who is, I believe, the vice-president of SLGA, our Chief Okemow Fox and I brought that up at the tail end of our discussion. At that point they were still unclear as to what was going to occur.
I actually brought up the matter of the fuel and tobacco tax process we currently have as First Nations. In the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan, we submit our number and we get the rebate. I did bring that up, and his idea was that it would fall in the same process. There was no further discussion regarding the excise tax after that.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Chair: Any further questions for second round? Seeing none, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Chief, for appearing here today and telling us how things are proceeding with Onion Lake Cree Nation.
For our second panel this afternoon, we are happy to hear from Carol Hopkins, Executive Director of the National Native Addictions Partnership Foundation. She is appearing via video conference.
Ms. Hopkins, you’ll have 5 or 10 minutes to do a presentation and then there will be questions from the senators. If you would proceed, thank you.
[Editor's Note: Ms. Hopkins spoke in her Indigenous language.]
Carol Hopkins, Executive Director, National Native Addictions Partnership Foundation: My name is Carol Hopkins, and I come from the Lenape Nation, otherwise known as the Delaware people. I am also, as was mentioned, the Executive Director of the National Native Addictions Partnership Foundation, also known as the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation. I want to say thank you for the invitation to present and speak with you this afternoon.
I would like to start off by giving some context to cannabis and its use in First Nations communities. I’m getting a little bit of feedback, so I’m hoping it’s not interfering with what you’re hearing. I will just keep talking.
About 89 per cent of First Nations youth entering national youth solvent abuse treatment centres in Canada are presenting with cannabis use as the number one substance. This network of residential treatment centres accepts youth ages 12 to 17 years old primarily. There is one treatment centre that accepts all the way up to age 30, and it’s on a more long-term program.
Eighty-nine per cent of youth and young adults are using cannabis early and frequently, so as young as 12, as old as 30, on a regular basis. We also know from the First Nations Information Governance Centre data from the Regional Longitudinal House Survey that at least 32 per cent of First Nations people in communities use cannabis or have used cannabis at least once in the past year. Adults going into residential treatment for substance-use issues report about 64 per cent of the population are using cannabis on a regular and frequent basis.
The issues related to cannabis have and are significant in First Nations communities already. The access to cannabis in our communities is fairly high, when we have 89 per cent of young people reporting they are using on a regular and frequent basis. The public health and safety concerns related to heavy and frequent use are significant. In that context, I want to share a little bit more in terms of how do we look at First Nations communities and their ability to address the issue?
All of the literature around cannabis that talks about high risks for anyone using cannabis early and frequently, one of the major focuses of the cannabis regulations is that we want to keep it out of the hands of youth and to also address the illicit market.
In conversations we’ve had as an organization with some First Nations communities tribal councils, their focus has been on the impacts on youth, pregnant women, breastfeeding women and people with mental health issues. If we look at some of the data that we also have from residential treatment or from the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey, we know First Nations people fit all of the risk issues for problematic cannabis use.
When you think about the illicit availability and the harms that currently exist with cannabis being used by First Nations people, we are also educating First Nations people about the importance of the regulations to reduce those risks by making a safer product available for First Nations. There is a lot more public education we need to do for First Nations people, and we also have to ensure First Nations communities have more resources available to them to help shift the perspective of just that fear-based response to understanding how they can use their own culture and own knowledge to facilitate a strength-based harm reduction approach to the impacts of cannabis.
For example, in the National Youth Solvent Abuse Program, although 89 per cent of youth are using cannabis early and heavily, still these youth leave treatment having improved at least one grade level in language arts and to one-and-a-half grade levels in math in a four-month residential treatment program, where they are only in the classroom focusing on educational studies for an hour to an hour and a half a day. That’s quite a significant increase in the strides they can make in education, and that is facilitated by the cultural practices made available through the residential treatment programs.
So where Indigenous cultural practices form the foundation of residential treatment to address those issues, youth have also been able to demonstrate their own maintenance of wellness up to 12 years post treatment when it’s tracked. Tracked at 3, 6 and 12 months post treatment, a greater number — at least 45 per cent — of youth are returning to school than prior to being in treatment. They have been able to maintain the reduction in their substance use post treatment, and for a majority of the youth, it’s solvent use issues they are in treatment for.
The reason culture makes a difference is because it’s a form of treatment that attends to the spirit, so it’s important in our public health approaches to supporting First Nations communities, we are working with communities to help them identify their own cultural practices and how they can bring that to be central in the way they are addressing issues.
Another perspective related to cannabis use is — I’m not sure if you've had presentations from the Assembly of First Nations, but there is a resolution from the assembly to promote cannabis medical marijuana on the non-insured health benefits formulary. We know there is a high rate of opioid misuse among Indigenous populations, and there are greater numbers of Indigenous people seeking out medical marijuana to support them, not only with physical pain but mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. It is having great success in terms of increasing the quality of life.
I’m not sure how much more time I have. I would like to keep talking, but I’m also conscious of the 5 to 10 minutes you gave me.
The Chair: Please continue.
Ms. Hopkins: Okay. So the risk issues for First Nations people that are also significant in terms of First Nations needs related to cannabis regulation is there’s a risk for mental health issues. For example, in the early adulthood stage of life, there is risk for developing schizophrenia. That risk is increased if there is schizophrenia in the family history, medical history. Also if individuals have had increased experience with trauma, and in our case it’s intergenerational trauma that First Nations communities are addressing. And then if you’re a young man, the risk is increased for schizophrenia.
So for First Nations communities that have not typically historically had a strong or good relationship or access to mental health services, then we have an under-served population related to mental health and the diagnosis of mental illness. That’s another factor that needs to be considered in terms of the current lay of the land and cannabis use and First Nations communities.
The earlier conversation I was introducing related to culture and the role culture plays is that with attention to the spirit, attention to using culture-based activities, connecting to land, which are critically important for wellness, it’s possible to mitigate the harms related to cannabis. That requires a paradigm shift.
The First Nations mental wellness continuum framework talks about the paradigm shift from using evidence that is absent of Indigenous knowledge to the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices for wellness. So those are key strategies that can help using Indigenous knowledge, using cultural practices. From a public health approach, ensuring First Nations communities have the right resources, the investment and public health awareness and educational materials to help them understand both the risks and the harms related to the legalization of cannabis.
There certainly is a lot of interest in First Nations communities, especially in how First Nations schools can be equipped to manage the conversations in ways that have not been had because of lack of resources and a lack of understanding about the impact of cannabis use on the developing brain.
The other thing I would like to say is where First Nations communities are beginning conversations on cannabis there is also the conversation around by-laws banning cannabis from their communities. About 10 years ago we did an environmental scan of First Nations communities who have by-laws banning alcohol. What we found was that the by-laws banning alcohol are somewhat similar to the thinking around by-laws to ban cannabis in our communities. So it’s generally fear-based, often created in times of crisis or significant events in the communities like accidents and those kinds of things.
First Nations communities are talking about their right to create that by-law, but they don’t have the necessary resources across sectors of services including law or justice, systems that will enforce the law of a First Nations community. So the by-laws to ban cannabis are often discussed in the same way communities have talked about by-laws to ban alcohol.
Our environmental scans show that prohibition doesn’t work. It calms people in the community for a period of time, but it doesn’t have any significant and long-term impacts. So First Nations communities, while they are looking at all of the different angles and impacts of cannabis, that’s one such perspective that also could benefit from further education awareness about addressing substance use issues.
One other point is First Nations people are already under heavy surveillance when they are involved with the child welfare system and when they are involved in the justice system. That surveillance often has conditions for abstinence of substances. It’s going to be really important we continue to monitor that First Nations population so they are not further criminalized as we proceed towards legalization of cannabis.
I’ll end my comments there.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hopkins. We will now open the floor for questions from senators.
Senator White: My question actually refers to access to drug treatment. In your experience and whether or not we are seeing increased access to residential drug treatment through Indigenous communities or status quo, and I guess from a — I think if we look at the impact in our southern states, in the southern states that have allowed for legalization, we have seen an increased demand.
Where are we at today for how many months to access residential drug treatment, whether or not you believe we need a dramatic increase in funding to access?
Ms. Hopkins: Well, the residential treatment program — that is, the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and the National Youth Solvent Abuse Program — across the regions vary in their waiting list for treatment. The numbers of people who have been accessing residential treatment have been fairly consistent. There is the perception that cannabis misuse will increase once there is legalization, but in our research, we have not seen good evidence to demonstrate cannabis misuse increases after legalization. We are doing a national survey right now that asks regions about their perceptions of cannabis misuse.
In terms of residential treatment, the need at this time continues to show consistency in the numbers of people accessing and the number of people on waiting lists. The conversation related to residential treatment is primarily the underfunding of residential treatment centres in terms of their operational funding and their wages. It’s not specific to cannabis use right now, although if that increases then there will have to be some conversation about the number of beds available.
When we talk about cannabis use in First Nations communities, the conversation of opioids always comes up. First Nations service providers and in some First Nations communities, there is a perception that cannabis is the lesser, if you will, of the two evils. It is far less harmful than opioids and the increased request for treatment services is specific to opioids rather than cannabis at this time.
Senator White: If I missed it, you can tell me and I’ll go back and look for it. What is the average wait time? In Ontario, for example, it’s about five months for under 18 and it’s higher by a month or two over 18. Is it similar in other provinces or have you done research on that? For residential treatment.
Ms. Hopkins: For residential treatment, I am sorry, but I don’t know the number right now. I can certainly provide that later specific to First Nations residential treatment centres.
The youth treatment centres are typically a four-month long program and some do have wait lists.
For the adult treatment centres, their programs range from 28 days to six weeks long.
So across the country, it is varied. I would have to look up that number and get back to you about the wait list for those treatment centres; I am not familiar with the provincial wait list times.
The Chair: Would you like her to send that information to the clerk?
Senator White: Yes, if possible. That would be appreciated.
The Chair: If you would send that information to the clerk then we will distribute it to the committee.
Senator Patterson: This is a very interesting presentation, which I’m sure is relevant to all Aboriginal people in Canada, including the Inuit regions.
I would like to ask you about the treatment centres and whether you’ve noticed any recognition by Canada that there will be or there is a need for more treatment resources, as reflected in the recent federal budget or otherwise. Is Canada responding to what people in my region think will be a larger impact and a larger requirement for community-based wellness programs like you described with the cultural and spiritual elements?
Ms. Hopkins: There is a growing need being expressed by Indigenous peoples in Canada for community-based treatment programs, and there are a number of Health Canada or First Nations and Inuit Health Branch programs that fund Indigenous peoples in Canada. Those resources are being used for community-based, land-based types of treatment programs. And where communities have used conventional, as well as Indigenous cultural approaches, they have seen a lot of success.
In terms of whether we have enough funding, is there recognition? There is certainly recognition about the importance of land and culture for treatment. In Canada’s North — Nunavut and Northwest Territories and the Yukon — those populations will certainly say they do not have enough resources; there are no residential treatment programs specific to those populations. And when land-based treatment is offered in those communities, it often does not come with enough resources. So communities are pooling resources across a number of services to support community-based treatment, which includes land.
We just finished developing a land-based service delivery model as a tool to support conversations with government, to help government understand the critical importance of culture, of land and other cultural practices as important for wellness.
The recent budget announcement is certainly a welcome one, but we are just moving into more conversation around the importance of funding community culture-based, land-based treatment programs for substance misuse.
When it comes to residential treatment centres, we also did a case study in Ontario of residential treatment centres and community-based substance use programs. We found for those programs, by comparison to provincially funded programs, at least another 47 per cent of funding to address wages and another 53 per cent in funding to address operational and capital issues. And our study also showed that amongst the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and the National Youth Solvent Abuse Program, we have more treatment centres accredited with standards of excellence than mainstream treatment programs in Canada and yet, we are significantly underfunded.
There is a growing acknowledgement and appreciation for those measures and those strategies and models. In Canada’s North, First Nations or Indigenous people will tell you mainstream programs do not serve them well because they are often not culturally competent, safe or have enough residential treatment beds, and that a majority of those clients come to south of 60 to access residential treatment.
Senator Patterson: You are very sensitive to the concerns that I’ve heard in Nunavut, and I thank you for mentioning that.
There was an announcement in the budget of $200 million, with $40 million per year ongoing to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions treatment and preventive services in First Nations communities with higher needs. Is that enough?
I also wonder if you could kindly share with us the analysis you have just spoken of with regard to residential treatment centres in Ontario, and any information on the land-based service delivery model? We are wanting to make recommendations at the end of this study and it seems that work you’ve done is very timely.
Ms. Hopkins: In terms of the land-based service delivery model, for example in the Northwest Territories, there was one residential treatment program and the Government of the Northwest Territories did a study about wellness and invested in community-based, land-based healing for Indigenous peoples in that territory, at the expense of the residential treatment program. And so it can’t be one or the other. Residential treatment and community-based, land-based treatment, both need to be accessible by Indigenous populations.
The issue of the barriers there has been — and I would suggest this would inform your recommendations — with the requirement for evidence that is absent of an understanding of about culture-based evidence and Indigenous knowledge as evidence, we have to understand the evidence with Indigenous knowledge and culture is different from what we understand as conventional evidence, but nevertheless it is important. It’s knowledge that has been sustained by sacred societies and by communities from generation to generation. And so moving from the absence of Indigenous knowledge and culture as evidence to the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and culture as evidence is the foundation of the land-based service delivery model. That addresses epistemic racism, which is the judgment about whose evidence and what knowledge and knowledge development is credible. So using Indigenous knowledge and culture as evidence is critically important for both community-based as well as residential treatment programs.
That’s one recommendation, because often times that knowledge and those practices are discounted as not being evidence sufficient to support funding for treatment programs. That’s one thing.
The other is that if culture is the foundation and Indigenous knowledge is critically important, then who is the workforce and who makes up the workforce? That’s the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge keepers and elders and cultural practitioners. Including them in the workforce means paying them a respectable rate that is not currently part of our understanding of how you pay or how you compensate adequately that knowledge and those skills. So Indigenous knowledge keepers and elders and cultural practitioners are paid far less than a social worker, addictions counsellor or psychologist who might provide services in mainstream addictions programs.
Another piece is recognizing who the workforce is. The third one is Indigenous communities that rely on their own cultural practices have shown significant gains.
For example, in communities that have implemented a community-based opioid agonist treatment program, alongside culture, they have demonstrated more gains than what would be made in, say, for example, a treatment program in terms of retention and completion of treatment than in an urban environment. Some of the dynamics related to that is a community versus an individual approach to treatment. Communities celebrating people who want to engage in healing and wellness, which addresses stigma and discrimination of people who are involved or people who have substance use disorders.
Stigma has just been announced by the Canadian government as a priority in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As a country and internationally, we have to focus on reducing the stigma of people with substance use disorders. When you have a community-based approach that focuses on strengths and celebrates the journey of healing and wellness, then you are significantly reducing stigma. Communities have been also investing their own resources in supporting the interaction of people with substance abuse disorders with the rest of the community by giving them purpose, helping them find ways to give back to the community and being active every day. If we address substance-use issues, then we also have to find meaningful contributions to the community. Communities that have done that also show success, measured by a reduction in medevacs out of the community, the increased number of children in schools, reduction of violation as reported by the police in the community and other things like fewer children being reported to child welfare.
Those are significant community gains when communities invest using culture and providing treatment from a world view that makes sense to the people of that community.
Senator Patterson: So your Ontario analysis of the survey could be made available to us. What about the $200 million in the recent federal budget, please?
Ms. Hopkins: The $200 million in the budget will go a long way to supporting First Nations or Indigenous peoples in Canada and addressing opioid issues. The approach to addressing the opioid issue may or may not also address the cannabis issue.
Our survey is still being rolled out. Once we get the results, we are certainly happy to report it. The Ontario case study has already been reported to Minister Philpott and to First Nations Inuit Health Branch. That Ontario case study, again, is focused on adequate resources for the workforce and for operations of residential treatment programs and community-based treatment programs.
The capacity right now to address opioids, as well as the capacity to address cannabis misuse, is still not there. While treatment centres have been addressing cannabis, in communities there are far fewer resources for schools and other service providers to be able to address harm reduction, to promote a harm reduction approach and to invest in a public health approach to understand the cannabis issue.
The budget is going to go a long way in terms of increasing capacity, but right now that capacity and what people are focused on is primarily the opioid issue. Building on the conversation of opioids to talk about harm reduction will also help us to increase our capacity around cannabis. Is it enough? No, it is not.
Senator Patterson: If I can follow up, do you have any suggestions on where the tax revenues that will flow from the sale of cannabis in Canada should go? Having heard your description of the needs, what should the governments do with those tax revenues? Should they go into the General Revenue and Consolidated Revenue Funds? Do you have any thoughts?
Ms. Hopkins: Well, when the announcement was made about cannabis there was also a claim that tax revenues would be shared with Indigenous peoples in Canada. First Nations communities we have been in conversation with are also asking the same question about taxation and revenue sharing from taxation. Where our First Nations government is in conversation with provincial governments around the availability and the regulations of cannabis in First Nations communities or Indigenous communities, there is a conversation around taxation. First Nations communities specifically that we’ve talked about are wanting to know how they will benefit specifically from taxation because they don’t have the same capacity around policing. Police forces and First Nations communities are not resourced for addressing drug issues, such as drug-related crimes, and we certainly do not want to promote criminalization related to the legalization of cannabis. So what is also in line with the United Nations special assembly on the world drug problem, the outcome document, talks about the right to health, the right to prevention and the right to treatment.
You’re talking about taxation and I’m talking about the decriminalization of possession and also wanting to make sure we are not further criminalizing Indigenous peoples. The resources to be able to take that approach are not there in First Nations communities in terms of having adequate resources for public health, for public awareness and education and for supporting First Nations police, who are going to be asked to respond as they have been asked to respond to the opioid issue. They want to partner in supporting healing and wellness, but they do not have the resources to do so. There are lots of economics around what is the right taxation to support the general public around having access to safe products, which can come through the regulation of cannabis, as well as to decrease the illicit market. Taxation is a delicate conversation in that regard, namely, what is the right level of taxation. Whatever the taxation is, there has to be conversations with First Nations communities and how that can benefit and help to increase their capacity to be able to keep their populations healthy and to address the current risks related to cannabis.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much, Ms. Hopkins. Your comments are both interesting and useful.
I want to make sure I heard something correctly. At the beginning of your comments, you mentioned that there is 89 per cent of regular use of marijuana in the age groups 12 to 17. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. Hopkins: That’s for the population aged 12 to 17 going into residential treatment.
Senator Christmas: Okay. For my own benefit, could you explain the difference between a residential treatment program and a community-based treatment program?
Ms. Hopkins: For a community-based treatment program, up until the opioid crisis, we didn’t have a concept of community-based treatment. We had community-based prevention services but no funding for community-based treatment.
Treatment was accessed through going to a residential program.
A residential program for First Nations youth in Canada is typically a four-month-long residential treatment program. For adults, residential treatment means leaving home, going to live in residence of a treatment program for anywhere from, on average, 28 days to six months.
Community-based services were initiated to provide greater access to treatment for substance use disorders specific to opioid use. Populations who had opioid use disorders could not get treatment because they chose to not engage in treatment using methadone, which means they have to live close to a pharmacy. If you have to live close to a pharmacy, that means you can’t live in an isolated or remote community; and even for rural communities, it’s difficult to access treatment.
Addiction specialists, in partnership with First Nations governments, have implemented, very effectively, treatment programs in the community using buprenorphine/naloxone — or otherwise known popularly as Suboxone — treatment in the community, which allows people to live and stay in their own community and get the pharmacological therapy — the drug, the medicine — as well as participate in cultural-based initiatives or family counselling services. Now that those models have been established, those community-based treatment programs — and they are not consistent across the country — that sets a foundation, if adequately resourced, to help support potential issues related to problematic cannabis use.
Senator Christmas: I was really quite impressed by the success of the culturally based, land-based programs. Do you know, Ms. Hopkins, if there has been any kind of formal evaluation of the success of those programs?
Ms. Hopkins: There has been a study out of Lakehead University. Dr. Chris Mushquash was one of the principal investigators. They studied 10 First Nations communities in Northern Ontario who had developed their own community-based opioid strategy and treatment program. Some of them used culture; some did not.
There is also the Sioux Lookout First Nations Health Authority, which has also invested in community-based opioid agonist treatment and has published their results.
Some of the community-based indicators I mentioned earlier, but they are also seeing individuals participate in the buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. They’ve moved some from methadone to Suboxone, to be free of any substance use and re-engaged in family and community life in a healthy way.
Senator Christmas: Lastly, I asked the federal government about the number of Indigenous treatment centres in Canada. The number I got back is that there are 45. I have no idea if 45 is the right number. What I’m hearing is they are underfunded and that we don’t have enough. For instance, we had testimony this morning that there are no treatment centres in Nunavut.
Ms. Hopkins: Right, or the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.
Senator Christmas: I find that amazing. I’m astounded. If we, the Senate, were to put a number out there and say this is the right number of treatment centres — be it residential or community-based — any idea, in your opinion, how many treatment centres we need in Canada for Indigenous people?
Ms. Hopkins: I can tell you for sure that in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, they have been requesting residential treatment centres, for the Indigenous population specifically, for many years.
On the other side of the coin, their strength is community-based treatment, land-based kinds of initiatives, but have those programs been funded adequately? No, they haven’t. The reason I say that with certainty is because culture and Indigenous knowledge keepers and elders have not been recognized formally as an important and critical part of community-based services.
That comes again from this idea about what is evidence, what is not evidence, what is credible. Because it hasn’t been seen as part of the evidence base, it’s not funded appropriately. So communities that initiate community-based services pool their resources, as much as possible, to create those kinds of services. Even funding physicians and addiction specialists to go into communities has not been resourced appropriately. These are issues that still need to be addressed in community-based treatment.
When I was talking earlier about wages and operations, our Ontario-based study was both for community-based services as well as residential treatment programs. On both fronts, there are not enough resources that match their ability — and their demonstrated ability — to offer services that meet standards of excellence. Standards of excellence are one way of demonstrating the strength of these programs, but they are not resourced appropriately.
Do we have enough? Again, to be confident in what I’m saying, I can tell you about the territories because I hear this often. I know there are no treatment centres there that are Indigenous-governed and Indigenous-run. They have been advocating for a number of years.
Across Canada, the 45 treatment centres that do exist, I would have to rely on going back to my information to see what is the current waiting list for those programs.
In terms of community, there are two national frameworks that talk about this. There is Honouring Our Strengths: A Renewed Framework to Address Substance Use Issues Among First Nations in Canada. There was a framework developed and we were a partner. Health Canada and the Assembly of First Nations were partners in developing that framework.
What it said, after a four-year conversation across the country with First Nations peoples, is we need more investment in community-based services. Historically, what has been funded is community-based prevention and residential treatment. Meanwhile, there is a whole evidence-based continuum that gives us lots of understanding about what we can do for early intervention and what we can do for harm reduction that is a lot less costly than residential treatment.
That continuum of care that can be implemented in the community has not been funded. Even with the recent announcement, it will not fund a continuum of care that we could make available in First Nations communities with the right resourcing.
Senator McCallum: Good afternoon, Ms. Hopkins. Thank you for your presentation.
I was very glad you brought up spirit, because in many of the presentations, that didn’t come up. When we look at the history of spiritual genocide that occurred in our communities and resulted in loss of power and spirit, many of the interventions have not worked because they don’t address the causes of the soul loss that happened with our people.
If you don’t address the soul loss — in some cases the sexual abuse and all the different types of violence that occur — and if we don’t get to those root causes, then we don’t retrieve our spirit back unless we go that deep.
This is just a comment because when you look at the success with your culture-based programs, it makes a lot of sense that cultural practices and treatment programs, alongside the intervention, have greater success.
When you put that in with the combined impact of the social determinants of health, it makes your job even greater, and you need even many more resources because you’re digging deep into our lives for us to work with you and as senators, as community people.
I just wanted to — I don’t know if compliment is the word, but keep doing your great work. Thank you.
Ms. Hopkins: Thank you very much, Senator McCallum. I’ll just add, based on your comment, that the Honouring Our Strengths: A Renewed Framework to Address Substance Use Issues Among First Nations People in Canada is a framework that was informed not only by the conventional evidence base we understand and know, but also by a network of Indigenous knowledge keepers and elders we talked to about how we can use their knowledge to inform how we address substance use.
They articulated a number of principles. They said one of the most important and critical principles we can use to guide how we think about treatment to address substance use issues is to ensure those services are spirit-centred. So if you look at that framework that has, again, the Assembly of First Nations logo as well as ours and Health Canada’s, one of those principles is spirit-centred.
When you put those principles into inform the design and delivery of treatment, we do have some evidence in the National Youth Solvent Abuse Program and the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program that shows the impact of investments using spirit. We developed a Native Wellness Assessment that measures what has been identified by Indigenous people across Canada as a whole and healthy person: spirit, heart or emotions, our mind, our mental wellness and our physical well-being. We now have this tool that can measure the outcomes of how culture is used to address substance use. We are seeing how, as a result of culturally-based or spirit-centred practice, we are facilitating wellness as an outcome for First Nations people, specifically seeking treatment for substance-use issues. Thank you for your comment.
The Chair: Ms. Hopkins, I was intrigued by your comment about the risk of schizophrenia after cannabis use. You indicated that risk was increased when you’re dealing with people who have suffered trauma.
Ms. Hopkins: Yes.
The Chair: And that is especially true for young males. Given that, do you think there is an argument for an increased investment in treatment because many Indigenous communities have suffered trauma?
Ms. Hopkins: Absolutely. There is work by Dr. Amy Bombay, and she did a secondary analysis of the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey. What she was able to demonstrate, by looking at that research, that we see now in a conclusive way with this data the more generations or lineage you have with residential school experience, the higher risk you have for depression, anxiety and suicide.
One generation, two generations, the more generations you have with that living experience, the trauma transcends generations. That’s where we come up with the term of intergenerational trauma.
While we know there is intergenerational trauma, we have not had access to mental health services. We have experienced the loss or displacement of Indigenous culture and cultural practices through colonization, that continues to exist. Even though we have solutions, they haven’t been part of our formal programs and services in our communities.
You can access services off-reserve, but we’re not always sure they are culturally competent or culturally safe services. We have this increased experience with intergenerational trauma that shows up as anxiety, depression or risk for suicide, but also other intergenerational experiences grounded in colonization, such as sexual abuse.
We have become increasingly aware that the experience and high rates of sexual abuse in First Nations communities are directly a result of colonization, residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the Millenium Scoop that is happening now. We understand sexual violence in our communities in a much different way than mainstream Canada and there aren’t the resources to support communities in addressing those issues.
For example, Thunderbird Partnership Foundation is undertaking a national initiative right now, and this is a conversation on government sharing responsibility for that intergenerational trauma by reviewing legislation and policy that would make it safe for communities to address the issues of sexual abuse. Right now, in the Criminal Code of Canada, incest is an indictable offence and First Nations communities have experience with restorative justice, but the restorative justice practices are primarily for summary offences.
We do have a number of really good examples where First Nations communities have been able to negotiate with the justice system, their local Crown attorney, the police force, child welfare authorities and for resources to support healing and wellness, where they have taken that community-wide approach to healing versus the punitive approach to addressing the sexual abuse.
I have had good success. I cite the Hollow Water First Nation where they just did a cost-benefit analysis and were able to show that safety in the community was sustained from 1984 to 2000, when they did the cost-benefit analysis, and saved significantly both provincial and federal corrections systems by that community-based approach.
There are also examples, unfortunately, where First Nations communities have wanted to take the community restorative justice and healing approach and the local Crown attorney has said no. I would suggest to you that is the same as the Indian agent having control over a community. So where communities have said, “We have our own societies, we have our own practice and we have our own ways that will facilitate healing for both the victim and the perpetrator,” and Crown attorneys have said no, then it has prevented the community from moving forward in their healing.
The safe policy practices initiative is to say the burden should not just be the First Nations or Indigenous community who has to negotiate with every Crown attorney, police force, and child welfare agency for funding for community-based healing and wellness. We should be looking at legislation and policy to say, “How can we better facilitate this?”
As long as communities are burdened by the fear that adults will be persecuted through the justice system and children are going to be lost to child welfare, they are not going to feel safe to pursue that avenue. No community wants to disintegrate the very fabric of their community if it’s unsafe for them.
The review of legislation and policy to ensure communities can ensure safety of their children, while pursuing healing and wellness, is also necessary in this climate of reconciliation. Government also has to invest. It can’t be just the burden of First Nations communities.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have come to the end of our hour. On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you, Ms. Hopkins, for your testimony and your answers to the questions from the senators.
We will now hear from the sixth panel. From the Indigenous Bar Association, we have Josephine A. de Whytell, Barrister and Solicitor; and from Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services, we have Stephen Derek, Executive Director; and Mary Bird, Legal Aid Director and Area Director.
You have the floor to do a brief presentation, to be followed by questions from the senators. Ms. de Whytell, would you like to go first?
Josephine A. de Whytell, Barrister and Solicitor, Indigenous Bar Association: Thank you very much. I would like to begin by recognizing and honouring the traditional Algonquin territory on which we are gathered and thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness before this committee as part of the review of Bill C-45 pertaining to the legalization of cannabis.
My name is Josephine de Whytell, and I’m an honorary member of the Indigenous Bar Association. Having graduated from the Keele University in the United Kingdom, I worked for and have been exclusively trained by Indigenous lawyers, including Donald Worme Helen Semaganis and more recently Katherine Hensel.
The IBA takes the position that the key to successful legalization of cannabis is meaningful inclusion of Indigenous peoples and economies. True reconciliation can only be achieved if Indigenous peoples are included as equal partners in both the discussions and development of economic benefits.
The inherent laws of nations have meaning to their respective peoples. For implementation of a nationwide scheme that aims to reduce the burden on the courts, control the illicit market, protect young persons and promote public health, Indigenous law must be recognized and able to operate congruently and harmoniously in a constitutionally inclusive legislative scheme. Indigenous governance of youth distribution, trade and policing of cannabis should obviously also apply for tobacco and hemp, as it should with all Indigenous resources, including land, water, clean air, educating and caring for children and the right to heal and resolve Indigenous communities’ own issues with health, economic advancement and resource management.
Recognition of self-determination in the cannabis industry would provide an invaluable leap forward in the trajectory of reconciliation and ultimately economic independence. It is certainly not too late for Bill C-45 to reflect a more positive nation-to-nation relationship, but exemptions for Indigenous nations must be incorporated, and the criminalization of cannabis respectfully should be abandoned.
The regulation of trade and social order has become a mechanism for the subjugation of Indigenous peoples and economies and the advancement and enfranchisement of European settlers in terms of social status and wealth, so renewing the original nation-to-nation relationship requires recognizing Canada’s adoption of UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and empowering Indigenous peoples to reconcile their equal status in Canadian society.
Bill C-45 essentially creates a trading monopoly over the new legal cannabis trade for provincial and federal governments and their selected entities. It provides both levels of Crown governments with wide discretion and criminal law powers to protect their intellectual property in this new industry. It does so amidst a justice system that repeatedly fails to serve Indigenous peoples and communities.
The IBA’s brief focuses on the disproportionality of Bill C-45 against Indigenous peoples by looking at how it perpetuates the status quo of genocide. Canada’s genocide against Indigenous peoples of this country is not limited to the forcible removal of innocent children from Indigenous homes and communities but can be understood through all aspects of Canadian legislation and policies concerning Indigenous peoples prescribing their activities and organization. Legislation drafted without Indigenous input or consent assumes it is culturally appropriate, beneficial and necessary for implementation by each unique and distinct Indigenous nation, regardless of that nation’s perspectives and actual needs, a term some chiefs have taken to calling legislative genocide.
Laws written on behalf of Indigenous peoples without their consent will have the effect of overwriting Indigenous culture from common law and slowly eroding and replacing Indigenous laws and customs with non-Indigenous laws of general application. But there are 148 First Nations that have created and implemented property taxation laws under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, and there are approximately 95 First Nations who have opted into the First Nations land management regime and 30 Indigenous nations who have opted to impose a First Nations goods and services tax.
There are initiatives and voices speaking to overturning Canada’s paternalistic dynamics that continue to inhibit Indigenous self-determination. As such, it is appropriate to consider revisions to Bill C-45 that would develop the new nation-to-nation relationship based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future. It is the IBA’s position that Bill C-45 disproportionately impacts Indigenous peoples, contrary to section 15 of the Charter, through the imposition of criminal sanctions, the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from the economy and denial of access through traditional methods of healing and self-determination.
By way of example, Bill C-45 imposes on indictment a maximum 14-year sentence for offences such as possessing, distributing, selling and cultivating in excess of four plants in a dwelling house, among others, automatically denying judges any opportunity to issue a conditional sentence or discharge.
In the case of an Indigenous offender coming before the courts on any of these charges, the sentencing judge would be statutorily disabled from applying Gladue principles and exercising discretion to rebalance the tilt of injustice that brings a disproportionate number of Indigenous people before the courts. There are also a number of socio-economic barriers faced by Indigenous people who might wish to become legal producers, distributors, sellers, importers, growers or medical patients under the current licensing scheme. It is reasonably foreseeable that by failing to include Indigenous nations in the legislative scheme in Bill C-45 without including an opt-in or opt-out provision for First Nations, the enforcement of Bill C-45 will result in Indigenous peoples being unfairly criminalized.
A legalization bill, which still engages the criminal law and justice system but disproportionately targets and underserves Indigenous and other marginalized peoples, continues to serve a one-sided and primarily non-Indigenous economy. Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission demanded and set the stage for reconciliation, it is submitted the federal government must ensure its legislation meets the standards and expectations that are set.
An element of cannabis use among traditional Indigenous peoples that federal and provincial governments are not adept to comprehend or regulate is the traditional knowledge that Indigenous peoples have kept sacred and retained within their families and communities. Only traditional knowledge keepers can authorize and regulate how this knowledge is shared and transmitted to future generations, and both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize this.
To prevent illicit trade from flourishing once cannabis is legalized, Indigenous peoples need to be invested in and see a benefit from participating in a regulatory scheme that serves their interests and does not marginalize and unfairly criminalize them. Unlike the tobacco industry, which took off in the 1700s to 1800s, there are Indigenous entities with capacity at the turning point of the end of cannabis prohibition who are poised and ready to capitalize on the upcoming market, if they are not disproportionately excluded from its bounty. It is the position of the IBA that Indigenous nations should have full authority to regulate the industry within their borders and have an option to impose and collect excise taxes on cannabis products.
Both tobacco and alcohol industries developed at the mercy of Indigenous peoples, providing symptomatic relief of collective residential school trauma within a legislative scheme that perpetuates Indigenous peoples’ criminalization for their over-reliance on non-regulated use. As settler industries have amassed great wealth and power in society, they have dominated over and excluded Indigenous nations from the market through legislation by being over-regulated and controlled by provincial governments.
The cannabis trade should not be permitted to follow the same course through an avenue of privilege and monopoly at the expense of Indigenous peoples' equality and economic autonomy. The Crown cannot purport to subsume the public interest of all Indigenous nations with respect to their use of powerful plant or medicine without violating sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter in respect of the equal rights of Indigenous peoples to be able to participate individually or collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care.
It is oversimplified, if not the product of colonial ignorance, to assume the widespread legal introduction of medicine within the territory of a First Nation or Indigenous community is a matter that is local or private to a province rather than a First Nation. In any event, it would be inconsistent with the honour of the Crown, the modern approach to Indigenous treaty implementation and the inherent right of Indigenous governments to self-determination to allow section 88 of the Indian Act to underpin this new era of cannabis trading relations between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.
Some nations may embrace recreational marijuana; others may not. Some Indigenous people or nations may wish to revitalize the spiritual element of engaging or connecting with the energy of the plant and restrict its use for that purpose. It is a matter strictly for each unique and distinct First Nation to decide for themselves. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Next, the Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services.
Derek Stephen, Executive Director, Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services: Good afternoon. My name is Derek Stephen, not Stephen Derek.
I work for an organization that was formed in 1990 by the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. We deal with various programs with our Nishnawbe-Aski Nation incorporation and provide legal services.
Our First Nations aren’t ready for this legalization of cannabis. Our First Nations have never been consulted or educated on it. First, that should be happening. Education is a big part. It aligns with what happened when liquor became legalized. There was chaos in the North where it was open. There was no education delivered through the programs for the First Nations. I see the same thing happening here, where you have non-regulation of a drug like liquor. Anybody can go into a liquor store and buy whatever they want to buy.
It will be the same situation here if it’s not regulated. I think there is both good and bad to it. The good is the economy — that is, economic development for First Nations right across Canada. The bad thing is it could harm health issues as well. We don’t know what is good about it. It could cause anything from health to youth — and we see that already with the usage in our communities. We are still trying to address suicides in our communities, yet we are pushing this on to our First Nations. That is not fair to them. At the same time, we keep building facilities in the North. But as soon as the new government comes into play, they all close down. That’s a fact and the reality in the North because of the cost of operation with facilities and programming. We see that all the time when these facilities close down due to a lack of funding or when a new government comes in. They all disappear. That’s why we have a high rate of suicide in our communities. It’s not just a lack of housing or a lack of social events or facilities that our youth can use. That’s the biggest issue that we run into in our communities.
I will give you an example. Attawapiskat First Nation was given an opportunity to build a youth centre two years ago. They still haven't got it. The promises that are being said during an election season or election year aren’t there. They just don’t happen. Nothing is on paper. Those are the kinds of things that we foresee happening in our First Nations. There’s a lack of education on everybody’s part — First Nations as well. We need to do our own things, even as far as creating bylaws.
The provincial courts don’t recognize our bylaws and the First Nations are trying hard to create them. It’s those blockages that prevent our First Nations from running our own communities and self-sustaining themselves. That’s the issue: Everything that comes into law is passed down to the province to handle. Why can’t the federal government work with the First Nations? They already have a treaty. Why is that not happening?
Those are points that our First Nations have always talked about, even our chiefs. I know because I was a chief once. Those things need to be addressed if we are going to push forward with this through to the communities. Our communities aren’t ready for it. Even the police services aren’t ready for it. They are not equipped for it. Even at the airports they are not equipped for it. There is no equipment to check everybody who goes up North but if you down South you get screened. Why are we not important? Why is the South more important than the communities in the North? We don’t have any screening equipment so that people can be screened to go up North. Anybody can take anything up North. If you go down South, you get screened like crazy. Even coming here, I had to get undressed and everything. They don’t do that when you go up North. Those are the things that need to be addressed in this bill. Providing programs for police services and our organizations is just not there. I’ll leave it there for now.
Mary Bird, Legal Aid Director & Area Director, Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services: I’m Area Director for Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services. I have also practised law in the North for 23 years before I took this position.
Nishnawbe-Aski nation is 49 communities over an area approximately the size of France. The most remote communities are accessible only by air, water or winter roads which get shorter and shorter each year. That leads to a huge a problem in terms of regulating what comes in and out of the communities.
I’m sure many of you have heard about Attawapiskat, but Pikangikum, in particular, has made the national and international news about the number of child suicides. It’s a regular issue for us. As Derek has said, the communities are not ready for this.
Part of it is looking back at how alcohol is dealt with. Proposed section 81 allows for communities to create bylaws to prohibit alcohol. It provides for some exemptions but does not provide for regulation. We have three treaty 5 communities that are part of NAN, and they are prohibited by the treaty. As Ms. Hoskins indicated that does not work. We know prohibition doesn’t work. We would like to see something specifically with respect to production and distribution so the First Nations are able to make bylaws.
There are certainly a number of problems that go along with that, particularly with respect to enforcement, as Derek and Ms. Hopkins pointed out. Our mandate is to create community-based legal systems. In the meantime, however, we are dealing with Crown attorneys and mainstream police forces and we struggle all the time about using the traditional approach.
Our organization was the first in Canada to create a restorative justice program. We are the first in Canada to create a talking together program to keep the children in the communities as opposed to being removed from the communities, although they are still being removed at horrendous rates.
We fight every day trying to get the police and the Crowns to do the restorative approach. One of the ways to do that is through regulatory laws and bylaws. That enables us to implement community-based justice and get people into community-based treatment.
It has been an abject failure of the Attorney General. I know that’s out of your bailiwick, but there is a relationship there that is critical. Like I say, we have 49 First Nations within NAN territory, three major language groups and dozens of dialects. Every one of those communities is an autonomous First Nation with its own set of principles and values. All of them are very similar. We all talk about the Seven Grandfather Teachings, but they all have their own ideas about how things should work.
It is important this legislation allows for each of these communities to develop their own regulations around cannabis, whether it’s going to be there or whether it’s prohibition. Personally, I’m against that, but there are communities who are going to say no, absolutely. We have two communities, Matachewan and Wahgoshig, that have both signed on to initiatives and invested in a couple of organizations, and they should be free to do so, but it has to come from within the community.
As Josephine mentioned, section 88 triggers otherwise, and the last thing we want is the Government of Ontario to come in and start regulating cannabis. I’ve watched what they’re trying to do in the province. It’s a mess. I don’t want to see that happen in the communities, which may have very different values.
When we are talking about taxation and where should that go, in the North we are not likely to see a lot of development of grow operations, simply because it is in the North and that requires a lot of power, which is expensive. However, there will still potentially be the tax on the purchase and sale of cannabis.
My understanding is there has been no decision as to whether or not that will go to general revenue. That’s a sin tax. The bottom line is it’s a sin tax, no different than the tax on alcohol or tobacco, and we accept sin taxes. It would be the position of our organization that Indigenous people are disproportionately harmed by substance abuse, over-criminalized and over-incarcerated, so they should over-benefit from the collection of sin taxes.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a series of cases beginning in 1984 with Guerin and on up, said that in all dealings with Indians — and that’s their words, not mine — the honour of the Crown is at stake. I believe here that in considering this legislation and what should be done with their potentially great benefits here, a large amount of those should flow back to the Indigenous people — not just First Nations but the Inuit, Metis, et cetera — who have suffered far more than any other identifiable group in 500 years of occupation.
The Chair: We will now start with questions, starting with Senator White.
Senator White: Madam Chair, I have two quick questions.
The first one is to Mr. Stephen, former chief. Thanks for being here.
I’ve been to some of the communities that you represent. In listening to your concerns, are you suggesting you would agree with an amendment in the legislation that obligated a First Nation or Inuit community, in particular, to be asked to opt in or opt out of the legislation?
Mr. Stephen: I cannot speak on behalf of First Nations.
Senator White: No. I’m just looking for your opinion.
Mr. Stephen: It would be up to the First Nations individually if they were to do that.
Senator White: So they decide whether they want to opt in and to be covered by the legislation?
Mr. Stephen: Yes.
Senator White: Realistically, after this legislation passes, regardless of what the province does, everyone in every community will be able to order cannabis products online unless there is a change in the legislation. Thank you very much for that.
For Ms. de Whytell: For probably the first time in Canadian history, we have an agricultural product being developed by other than agriculture; it is being developed by the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in from the Grand Cayman and Turks and Caicos and other countries.
While I was listening to you, I was googling which Indigenous groups in Canada are involved in agriculture now, and there are a lot. Since we started these discussions, I don’t think we have heard one Indigenous group involved in agriculture say that they’ve been approached by the Government of Canada to be involved in this agriculture. It’s like Jeopardy; I have to put this in the form of a question.
Have you any information to tell us that the federal government is engaging with Indigenous groups to try to develop an agricultural product, or am I missing it?
Ms. de Whytell: I am not aware of that specifically. I understand there are incentives with licensed producers seeking to converse with First Nations on a private level.
With respect to agriculture, this plant, there is the Nagoya Protocol, which I don’t believe Canada is a signatory to, but it’s in furtherance of the Convention on Biological Diversity. That particular protocol promotes and supports Indigenous nations developing and cultivating their own plants and using that for their spiritual, ceremonial and recreational, as well as economic, purposes. I think that is definitely something that should be considered.
Senator White: If I may, because we’ve heard from people representing corporations talking about independent corporations engaging with, in particular, First Nations communities in terms of working together on a program. We haven’t heard once that the Government of Canada saw this as an opportunity for First Nations or other Indigenous communities in terms of their development, that they could actually be involved in this solely rather than being dragged along by some corporation that’s primarily funded out of the Caribbean Islands.
Ms. de Whytell: It’s very disappointing.
Senator White: Again, it is not a question. I apologize.
Senator Tannas: I’m just going to very quickly follow along on what Senator White was talking about.
Mr. Stephen, could you tell us if you are aware of any consultation that went on at the federal government and NAN on this particular bill? Was there any?
Mr. Stephen: I have not heard a thing.
Senator Tannas: Forty-nine First Nations, the size of France, no consultation?
Mr. Stephen: No.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Ms. de Whytell, you are the leading legal organization. This is a legal bill. I mean, it’s an agricultural bill, but it talks about changes to the Criminal Code. Was your organization consulted by the federal government?
Ms. de Whytell: Not that I’m aware of, certainly not.
Senator Tannas: You mentioned in your presentation that your organization favours some kind of opt-in program. Would you be prepared to prepare and proffer an amendment for us to consider?
Ms. de Whytell: Absolutely, yes.
The Chair: Just to follow up on that: If you do that, would you please send it to the clerk of the committee? Then it will be distributed and received as actual evidence.
Ms. de Whytell: Thank you. Yes, Madam Chair.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much, panel, for your comments.
Mr. Stephen and Ms. Bird, both of you had mentioned the NAN First Nations are not ready for this bill; they are not ready for Bill C-45.
Ms. Bird, you specifically mentioned Attawapiskat and Pikangikum. If these First Nations are not ready, what could happen if this law is passed without an opt-in or opt-out clause?
Ms. Bird: I don’t know.
I mean, it’s open season. People will hear that marijuana is legal. We know the average person on the street, that’s all they will hear. We will have people who will be growing it and distributing it without understanding the law. Without any education, they are not going to realize there are all these rules and regulations that you could have four plants, only you can’t sell it. You have to be licensed. It’s going to result in more criminalization, quite frankly.
Will it increase the use? I really don’t know. You hear statistics on the increased usage once it’s legalized, but, quite frankly, if you do a survey where marijuana is illegal and say, “Do you use marijuana?” If you do, you are probably going to say no. If it’s legal, you are going to say yes. I don’t know how accurate that is, and I can’t speculate.
It will put people in a position where they will conduct themselves in a manner they think they are acting legally, and they are not. The last thing we need is more criminal charges in these communities.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Stephen, you mentioned the introduction of liquor and how that created chaos. If nothing changes and this bill gets passed, do you anticipate the same thing happening in those or other communities?
Mr. Stephen: Yes, and it’s still on going. It has subsided somewhat, but not decreasingly due to the fact that there is a lack of employment and economy in the North. The same thing will happen here with cannabis. People are already selling it in large numbers just to get by. With the cost of living in the North, that takes into account what people do up North and how they react to these things. It is going to create issues and problematic areas like the education system, health care and policing.
Senator Christmas: If First Nations were to be given a sufficient amount of time to prepare for the legalization of cannabis, do you think there would be a better outcome before this legislation took effect?
Mr. Stephen: You can give the First Nations all the time they need and want, but the problems will still be there. It’s how you regulate it. Like I say, you can walk into a liquor store and see people buy 10 cases of liquor. The same thing could happen here if it’s not regulated, and they go back into the communities and bootleg it. That’s how they make their money.
The same situation here. If you put it on the shelves of a liquor store, if there are no regulations as to how much you can buy, people will sell it and bootleg it at an outrageous price in the North. The education is a big part that needs to happen and also the regulations and how much you can buy in the liquor stores. Who consumes 10 cases of a mickey overnight? It doesn’t happen.
The cashiers are people who work in the liquor store and should catch this. It’s a money grab and it’s good tax dollars. Unfortunately, we don’t benefit from it; the rest of Ontario does.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I am looking at all the issues coming up with this bill and that First Nations will be disproportionately affected. There was a lack of consultation with the people, a lack of informed consent, and not respecting local governance. When I look at that, my question is, do you think this is a discriminatory law?
Ms. de Whytell: Yes, this particular bill does discriminate on the basis that it treats Indigenous people the same as every other person who does not have a section 35 right.
Senator McCallum: What do you do when you know it’s going to discriminate? What do you do before it becomes law?
Ms. de Whytell: If there was the opportunity, consultation would have been appropriate. Given the lateness of the hour with respect to this particular legislation, an opt-in or opt-out clause which recognizes the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to govern and regulate the cannabis industry in their own communities, and the policing and enforcement of those regulations within their own communities, might go some way to prevent the disproportionately that is foreseen.
Senator McCallum: I thought I understood what opt in and opt-out was. Can you explain it to me? That creates concerns for me.
Ms. de Whytell: If legalization of cannabis is something that will apply to everyone in Canada, and they can purchase cannabis on the Internet, then the opt in and opt-out has to recognize that the opting in is a matter of saying the federal and provincial regulations can apply on the First Nation by consent, and those who chose to opt out of the regulatory scheme would still have legalization of cannabis throughout Canada but would have the option to use their own laws to regulate a mechanism for that to exist in their own communities.
Senator McCallum: So with opting out, I can’t see how it’s going to resolve the issue because if people are going to want the drug, they are going to go to different places. If one community says they’re opting out, and people go to another community and access marijuana and bring it back, that creates another legal issue.
I don’t understand why you’re increasing policing with this bill, but you’re decriminalizing as well. It gives me a mixed message. With the increase in policing, it’s going to create some negative stuff. Is it criminal acts? Why is there an increase in policing?
Ms. de Whytell: The Indigenous Bar Association believes the Criminal Code shouldn’t apply to this legalization bill and that these matters should be regulatory offences and not criminal ones.
Senator McCallum: But right now it will be criminal?
Ms. de Whytell: Yes. The over-criminalization of Indigenous people in the justice system is going to mean that if these regulations are enforced on Indigenous communities within their territories, then it’s going to create a lopsided legalization scheme, which will certainly not benefit the First Nations.
If Indigenous communities have the opportunity to tax the cannabis themselves, then they would have increased revenue to deal with those issues.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator White: Mr. Stephen, if I may, I think you said you have 48 communities?
Mr. Stephen: Forty-nine.
Senator White: This isn’t my question; this is a foundation. Are any of those communities controlled or dry communities?
Mr. Stephen: There is, I think, 24 dry.
Senator White: So 24 have made their decision not to have alcohol legally in the community. Is there any difference in the crime rates in those communities compared to those where it’s not dry?
Mr. Stephen: I think in some cases there are differences. For example, you have Attawapiskat First Nation, a bigger community than Peawanuck, which is sort of open.Attawapiskat First Nation is closed. But I think you have a better handle on it when you’re a smaller community than when you are a bigger community.
I know when we were a little community back in the 1960s, we were able to control our own community, but now since our population is around 2,200, it’s very hard to control since you have a young population. Back then, we were able to have that control within our community, and what happened was because of the policies that were brought into our communities.
Our communities have kind of lost that control in that sense. It’s the same with a bigger community like Pikangikum. It hasn’t subsided because it’s over 3,000 in population.
Senator White: So you know my background, I worked 19 years in the three northern territories and a couple of times in Nunavut. In the communities where policies were brought in by the government — not policies brought in by local communities, government or leadership — those communities where the community had decided not to have alcohol, I think someone said it was typically done because something traumatic or tragic had occurred. The crime rates in those communities were certainly much different than those where the community had not made that decision.
But it was a community decision. I guess it’s back into the opt in and opt out. At the end of the day, we talk about self-determination. Maybe this is right at the basic opportunity for Indigenous communities to decide whether or not they are ready, and today, they may not be. Tomorrow they may be. But really that’s what we’re trying to figure out here.
My argument would be what better way to allow self-determination than to allow an Indigenous community to say, “You know what? We’re not ready for this.” I would argue most Canadians would say the same thing, by the way. We just don’t have that opportunity to say it in most communities I live in.
So I guess I have to put this in a question. Wouldn’t you agree this is a perfect opportunity for your communities to actually make your own decision as to whether or not it’s ready?
Mr. Derek: Yes. I think that’s appropriate to say. But it all goes back to our communities are still trying to heal from residential schools and putting more stuff on them is — how do you deal with that? How does a community deal with that? It’s another issue that needs to be looked at as well, and taken into consideration. If you want to legislate these things, then how do you legislate the other issues that are First Nations are facing today, like the residential school system and other stuff that has gone on with our people? Those kinds of things need to be taken into consideration as well.
Senator White: Thanks to each of you for being here today.
The Chair: Before we close this session, I would just like to ask something of Ms. de Whytell of the Indigenous Bar Association. You had said the community should consider revisions to Bill C-45 and you have offered to send us an amendment with regard to the opt in and opt out. Are there any other amendments the IBA considers to be important that you might also be willing to send to the committee?
Ms. de Whytell: There were some additional recommendations the IBA considered in its brief with respect to the ticketing as opposed to criminal convictions for cannabis-related offences. Certainly, that is something on which the IBA, if I were able to discuss that with the board, could certainly provide some revisions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. With that, on behalf of the committees I would like to thank our witnesses this afternoon from the Indigenous Bar Association and Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services. Thank you for your testimony and your excellent answers to the senators.
We’re now on the last panel. We have before us, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Trevor Daroux, Chief Superintendent; Inspector Kimberly Taplin, Acting Director; and Inspector Jason McAdam, Officer in Charge.
You have the floor, if you would like to begin your comments. After that, we will have questions from the senators.
Trevor Daroux, Chief Superintendent, National Aboriginal Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the unseeded territory of the Algonquin people.
Thank you for inviting us here to discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s role in Indigenous communities as it relates to Bill C-45, the proposed Cannabis Act.
My role is director general responsible for the National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services section of the RCMP’s contract in Aboriginal policing branch.
I am joined today by Inspector Kimberly Taplin, the officer in charge of the RCMP’s National Aboriginal Policing services; and Inspector Jason McAdam, Officer in Charge, National Crime Prevention Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
By way of context, the RCMP is under contract to provide front-line policing services to all provinces and territories in Canada with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. The RCMP provides policing services to over 600 Indigenous communities across Canada. Contributing to safer and healthier Indigenous communities is one of our five strategic priorities.
Delivering culturally competent police services provides the foundation necessary to build relationships and partnerships with the more than 600 Indigenous communities we serve.
Our shared and unique history with Canada’s Indigenous peoples provides an environment in which we can work collaboratively to improve community health and wellness. We are committed to continuing to build upon these relationships as we encourage, sustain and foster honest and open dialogue among our Indigenous partners.
As we work together, the RCMP is in a position to assist and advocate for Indigenous communities at local, provincial, territorial and national levels.
We contribute to safer and healthier Indigenous communities by promoting and encouraging the recruitment of Indigenous people as potential employees and police officers; by working collaboratively with the communities to ensure enhanced and optimized service delivery; by developing relevant and culturally competent police services; by contributing to the development of community capacity to prevent crime through ongoing social development; by maintaining and strengthening partnerships with Indigenous communities, our policing and government partners, stakeholders and Aboriginal organizations; by promoting and using alternative community justice initiatives for Indigenous people; and by demonstrating value for service through the development, management and valuation of the annual performance plans created in collaboration with local Indigenous communities. These are jointly agreed to sets of priorities.
By contributing to public policy development and implementation to assist in building safer and healthier Indigenous communities, contract policing ensures a consistent quality of service across Canada, but the level of police services provided in each province and territory ultimately rests with the provincial or territorial governments as do the objectives, priorities and goals for policing in each respective jurisdiction. In this context, each jurisdiction can develop and pursue individual, customized initiatives to address local needs.
In serving Indigenous communities, the RCMP focuses its efforts across the spectrum of education and awareness, prevention, early intervention and enforcement.
While the RCMP is but one partner among many to improve and ensure safety in Indigenous communities, we accept that we play a crucial role.
Another of the RCMP’s five strategic priorities is to reduce youth involvement in crime, whether as victims or offenders. The current priority issues are bullying and cyberbullying, youth radicalization to violence, gender-based violence, substance misuse and enhanced road safety. In order to reduce youth crime and victimization, the RCMP aims to support sustainable, long-term responses; support approaches that are consistent with the Youth Criminal Justice Act; focus on risk factors, prevention and early intervention; and promote youth engagement and empowerment. To help achieve these goals, the RCMP focuses on outreach and engagement and intervention and diversion. Outreach and engagement is aimed at increasing youth awareness and influencing youth behaviour through behaviour modelling, mentoring, active learning and engaging youth to positively influence their peers, school and communities.
Related activities include school-based prevention initiatives, community engagement, youth consultation, youth police partnerships, online resources and technology-enabled engagement. Intervention and diversion focus on intervening with youth offenders and victims of crime to address underlying causes of crime and victimization through direct programming, multi-agency partnerships and referrals to community programs. Related activities include extrajudicial measures, restorative justice approaches and multi-agency partnerships.
It is important that young people have the opportunity to provide their perspective on issues that affect them, since they are believed to be the key players in the prevention of crime in communities. Understanding their perspective enables police officers to interact more effectively with and better understand youth. The RCMP National Youth Advisory Committee brings together youth from all over Canada to discuss important issues they face in their respective communities while providing valuable input to the RCMP’s policies, programs and strategies.
The RCMP believes that long-term prevention of youth crime and victimization can only be accomplished in partnership with the community. For this reason, the RCMP works closely with local organizations and social services so that young people who come into contact with the police as either victims or offenders receive the help they need to overcome challenges in their lives.
In the spirit of reconciliation and in recognition of the value of community-led initiatives, the RCMP works closely with Indigenous communities and groups to develop innovative and culturally responsive policing approaches. For example, the RCMP commissioner has a National Aboriginal Advisory Committee, which was formed in 1990. The committee is comprised of representatives from provinces and territories.
In addition, division commanding officers’ advisory committees meet to provide local perspectives identifying the community’s needs, allowing for the strengthening of partnerships with Indigenous communities.
Local priorities in crime prevention approaches are discussed regularly by RCMP detachment commanders and community leaders, chiefs and councils and mayors to establish annual local policing priorities. Additionally, the RCMP works to facilitate Indigenous programs and initiatives across the country, such as Aboriginal Shield, the Aboriginal Pre Cadet Training Program, community program officers, the Community Constable Program, the Indigenous youth leadership workshops and the National Youth Advisory Committee. These programs and initiatives focus on crime prevention and reduction through education, early intervention and community mobilization.
The RCMP collaborates closely with the leaders and representatives of national Indigenous organizations to ensure the national Indigenous voice is heard. The national Indigenous organization advisory group meets twice per year. As Canada’s national police force, the RCMP will continue to work through the implementation of the proposed cannabis act by continuing to strive toward our strategic priorities of contributing to safer and healthier Indigenous communities and protecting youth. The RCMP will also continue to work to achieve our mandate to prevent, disrupt and investigate serious criminal activity in partnership with contract partners, law enforcement, outreach services and communities across Canada.
Thank you again for inviting us here to discuss the proposed cannabis act. We would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator White: Thanks to all of you for being here. Thanks for your service, of course.
We have had a number of discussions surrounding opt in/opt out of the legislation as it relates to Indigenous communities, and some would have suggested, I think, that there is not much of a difference in communities that have or do not have alcohol. Having served in those communities for about 19 years, I always felt there was a clear difference, but I’m wondering statistically, do you have any evidence on crime data in relation to those that have opted to be a non-alcohol accessible community compared to those that have opted to be accessible?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you, Senator White. I don’t have those statistics with me, but it’s certainly something where we can go back and get those for you.
Senator White: If you wouldn’t mind and forward them to the clerk.
The second question connects to organized crime, which although that’s not exactly why you are here, we do know, however, that organized crime is in every community in this country, which includes Indigenous communities. Does the RCMP anticipate seeing a reduced involvement of organized crime in the illegal marijuana market should it be legalized, or are you anticipating a blend?
Mr. Daroux: Organized crime falls into a different area, obviously, than mine. The focus has been recognizing that organized crime doesn’t focus merely on commodities. Rather, our focus has been on the organized crime groups, not necessarily commodities, so the efforts will continue going toward those organized crime groups.
Senator White: Again, I know it’s not your area, although I’m sure you are in those rooms. Has there been any indication that organized crime funding into the proposed legal markets, particularly through Caribbean countries — we heard Senator Joyal speak in the Senate not long ago about, I think it was $250 million that has come from unknown accounts in the Grand Cayman, I believe, or Turks and Caicos, one or the other. Has there been any indication that we are seeing funding from offshore accounts into the development of a legitimate “marijuana market”?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you for that question. Yes, that would fall outside of my area, so I wouldn’t be able to provide you — there would be someone who can provide a better answer than I could on that.
Senator White: Thank you very much.
The Chair: If I could follow up with a supplementary with respect to Senator White’s first question on collecting the crime data.
I am aware that in the last three or four years, the RCMP has been collecting data with regard to the Aboriginal identity in homicide cases, and those have been sent to Statistics Canada. I have actually looked at those myself and done some tabulations.
Are there plans in this case to collect data with regard to Aboriginal identity and perhaps with youth so we can monitor the impact of Bill C-45 when it is implemented on Indigenous people and on youth? Is that kind of data collection possible? Are there plans to do that type of data collection?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you for that question, Madam Chair. That will be something that we can certainly take back and take a look at with respect to data on youth. Capturing data on ethnicity is something we will have to look at.
The Chair: Similarly, you mentioned in your presentation that you have a National Youth Advisory Committee. I presume there are also youth from Indigenous communities. Have they expressed concerns about cannabis legislation? Have you had any feedback whether or not they have any fears about it, whether they think it’s a good idea, those kinds of things?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you, Madam Chair. That advisory group is quite a large group. It’s around 150 youth who connect virtually. The discussions around cannabis and other issues have been quite open, and responses, I would say, have been quite mixed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Could you outline what plans there are for training RCMP officers in the territories for dealing with persons impaired by marijuana who are operating vehicles or heavy equipment?
I’ve just toured Nunavut communities consulting on Bill C-45 — in fact, all Nunavut communities — and met with every mayor and council and they were universal in their concern about dealing with the risks of impairment, not just for vehicles but for the heavy equipment that gets operated in Nunavut communities in very adverse circumstances.
They were wondering about how they could train their bylaw officers and how and whether RCMP officers would be trained.
I’ll ask you another question: Is there an accurate way of measuring impairment by cannabis as we have and accept for alcohol?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you for the question.
It’s two-part question. Our group focuses mostly on the prevention, early intervention and the education side.
The enforcement side falls into another area and that’s one that has been before another committee as recently as last week. I can’t discuss the enforcement aspect, but one of the things I think is important that we are focusing on is that it’s one thing to focus efforts merely on enforcement.
We want to look at and focus our efforts on education, prevention and early intervention, focusing primarily on youth to get that message out about the harms and the ills around impaired driving, whether through drugs or alcohol. As recently as last week, we put out a video called “Shattered”. I welcome anyone to look at that on YouTube.
It was designed in consultation with a lot of community groups, not just youth, but groups from a variety of different backgrounds to get that message across.
We know in policing there are very few things you can enforce your way out of. That’s why the education and prevention are critically important. I would say that also applies to older people with respect to those who are in the working world and agencies that are working through that.
There will be an enforcement component that falls outside my area. We are focusing and working with other areas of government with respect to messaging around education, prevention and early intervention. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Just following up on that, certainly, education for youth and other members of the community was emphasized as a very important companion to this bill, which could make for easier access to marijuana in northern communities.
The federal government has budgeted monies for education, I believe, in conjunction with the plans to implement this bill.
Are there funds that have been allocated to the RCMP for the purpose of public education? I do know a bit about the financial pressures on the RCMP right now, and I commend you for your stressing the need to focus on education which, as I say, has been echoed in communities.
Are you going to have additional resources to meet what northern communities fear is going to be a significant impact on already vulnerable populations?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you for the question. Yes, we will be applying additional resources to education and focusing. We recognize, though, those resources cannot just sit in Ottawa. We have to reach out to the community where the connection is made in the community and the message is best conveyed through those existing relationships.
Additionally, I think, when we talk about education, it is one thing to have one area of government talking about some of the issues around misuse of substances, but it’s even more important when we start working closely with school systems, we work with the health system and local governments as well to convey that same message to children, especially to our youth, so that there is consistent messaging across, whether it’s parents giving that message, the school or the RCMP officer.
In answer to your question, yes, we will be applying additional resources but we will also be focusing, especially at the national level, on having collaborative messages come from multiple sources to provide education to youth and parents.
Senator Patterson: Can you provide information and specific details about the additional resources you mentioned?
Mr. Daroux: We can get those details and I’ll bring those forward.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.
A number of First Nations have testified before the committee they are not ready for Bill C-45. I believe your most senior advisory committee is at the national level. Has the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee discussed First Nations concerns about the pending implementation of the Cannabis Act?
Mr. Daroux: At the last meeting we had, we did not discuss the legalization of cannabis, no.
Senator Christmas: To follow up to Senator Patterson’s question, are you comfortable or satisfied the RCMP, or at least the national Aboriginal policing services, has enough resources? I mean not only promotional, but training and equipment, to prepare for the implementation of the Cannabis Act on the First Nations reserves?
Mr. Daroux: More time is always better, but given the time we have and the opportunities we have available to us right now, we will be as prepared as we certainly can be. I think that it will require a dedicated and concerted effort to ensure that we are and will continue to move forward. The RCMP will be ready.
Senator Christmas: Are First Nations police officers involved in the training that will take place for this act?
Mr. Daroux: The training is being developed now in anticipation of the legislation coming forward. Of course, there could be changes or intricacies within the legislation we can’t anticipate, but the training is moved forward as much as it can.
We’re working not only within the RCMP itself, but we are working with other police agencies as well to roll out standardized training across the country. We are continuing to move forward as much as we can now and we will continue to move forward depending on the timeline that we’re given.
Senator Christmas: Under the sister bill, Bill C-46, one of the proposed changes is to introduce mandatory roadside testing. I presume First Nations police officers will also be part of that training as well.
Senator Tardif: That falls outside my area; I can get someone to give you a better response. The training will be national and available to police officers across this country.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation.
I’m from northern Manitoba. I’m a dentist and I was in there full-time and I was the chair for the school community for about six years. In that time, I had connections with the RCMP stationed in Lynn Lake. In my community, there was a limited service of two days every two weeks, so you’re already stretched for human resources and most of the work done by the RCMP was geared toward enforcement.
So there was little connection with the youth in terms of education. We were dealing with bullying at the time, plus there was a two-year rotation of staff. So trust remains an issue. Also, a lot of RCMP were young in terms of experience. You then put into that the strained relationship between the RCMP and Indigenous people, especially right now with the Colten Boushie case.
When I look at that, how will the RCMP be able to turn that around so that the community will look at them when the education comes in? It’s already a strained relationship. The children that were in the school I was in did not have a good relationship with the RCMP. How will that work when you’re going to put in that education component part of the marijuana bill?
Mr. Daroux: Thank you for your question.
I’m sorry to hear about some of the situations that have occurred with respect to youth who don’t feel comfortable with the RCMP or with RCMP members. It is an absolutely priority of the RCMP that our members build the trust and confidence of the community. We do that in a number of ways, certainly by the people we hire. We are making great efforts to diversify the RCMP so we have a greater component of Indigenous officers serving in Indigenous communities.
We have multiple programs where we can connect to the communities better than we have in the past. There are things like our community programs officer, who is really a non-uniformed member who works is that liaison between the RCMP and the community so we can better understand the community and needs of the community and can serve it in a better way.
We also have the community constable program, a new program that’s starting where we are hiring people from the community that will work in the community and they don’t leave the community. They will be if full uniform working with the RCMP.
But that doesn’t mean that there is not a single officer who will be deployed in any of our communities regardless of where they are in this country that won’t be tasked with building the trust and confidence of the community we serve.
We truly see ourselves as an arm of that community and as that we have to gain trust and confidence. It won’t come easy. We didn’t lose it in a short period of time but we are making strides to gain that trust and confidence back. It’s something that we are committed to as we move forward. I thank you for that question.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator White: Thanks again for being here.
We are heard evidence in Committee of the Whole in the Senate that we are spending $2 billion a year on policing on recreational marijuana use. Today we heard a witness saying it was $1 billion which is a step, probably, toward the truth.
How much money do you think we spend on policing recreational marijuana use in this country?
Mr. Daroux: Thanks for that question. I don’t have that answer but it’s an interesting question. It is not one I have tried to quantify in terms of dollars and cents, but it is a very interesting question. I don’t have an answer for that.
The Chair: That will be the end of our session. On behalf of the members of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, I thank the members from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for your testimony and the answers to the questions.
Before we leave, I would like to provide you with some information. Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a statement of exoneration in the House of Commons for the six Tsilhqot'in chiefs who were tried, convicted and hanged for murder in 1864 and 1865. There is a reception in the Senate foyer right now with the Tsilhqot'in chiefs and their representatives. I invite all senators here to attend if their schedules permit.
(The committee adjourned.)