THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 4, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I’d like to introduce the senators participating today. We have Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick, Senator Hartling from New Brunswick, Senator Tannas from Alberta and Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia. Senator Arnot has just joined us as well. Welcome, senators.
I’d like to ask the witnesses joining remotely to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized. Should any technical challenges arise, please let us know in the Zoom chat. I’d also like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed; however, official proceedings can be shared via the SenVu website.
Today we are here to begin our study on the federal implementation of the Cannabis Act, also known as Bill C-45, as it relates to Indigenous peoples in Canada. The Cannabis Act received Royal Assent in June 2018.
With that, I’d like to introduce our first witnesses. With us today we have, from the Métis Nation British Columbia, Dr. Kate Elliott, Minister of Mental Health and Harm Reduction and Chair of Women and Gender Equity; and from the St. Mary’s First Nation, Sakom Chief Allan Polchies Jr. Welcome, chief. Nice to see you again.
Dr. Elliott and Sakom Polchies will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes each. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator.
I will let the witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time. I will also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the five-minute period for questions and answers. I apologize in advance for interruptions, but we have a tight schedule this morning. In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I invite them to send a written response to the clerk before next Tuesday, October 11.
I will now invite Dr. Elliott to give her remarks.
Dr. Kate Elliott, Minister of Mental Health and Harm Reduction and Chair of Women and Gender Equity, Métis Nation British Columbia: Tansi, everyone, good morning. My name is Kate Elliott. I’m calling in from lək̓ʷəŋiʔnəŋ-speaking people’s territory in Victoria, British Columbia, home of the Métis Nation Greater Victoria. Thank you so much for the kind introductions. I am the minister of mental health and harm reduction with Métis Nation British Columbia as well as hold the portfolio of women and gender equity. In addition to that, I’m also a practising family physician and have the privilege of serving the urban Indigenous population here in Victoria, as well as Pacheedaht First Nation, as well as doing inner city addictions work in Victoria.
Thank you so much for the invitation to participate in today’s session.
We are grateful to engage and hold space for the Métis perspective in the ongoing review of the Cannabis Act. Métis Nation British Columbia represents one third of the Indigenous peoples in the province of British Columbia with nearly 90,000 Métis people in British Columbia, including 20,000 registered, B.C. citizens. MNBC also represents 39 chartered communities across British Columbia. MNBC’s ministry of mental health and harm reduction advocates for culturally appropriate mental health, substance use and harm reduction programs, services and policies at the national, provincial and regional level.
Our ministry’s goal is to improve the mental health and harm reduction services for Métis individuals in communities and increase access to programs that meet the need of our nation. We continue to highlight and address the gaps in existing services and advocate for change needed for Métis Nation to have better mental health and wellness outcomes.
On September 22, 2022, during the announcement at the launch of the legislative review of the Cannabis Act, the committee that should focus particularly on the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities was highlighted. MNBC strongly advocates for the weaving of a distinctions-based approach throughout this process. Ensuring that a distinctions-based lens is utilized allows us to recognize and honour the unique experiences, interests and priorities of Métis, First Nation, Inuit and urban Indigenous communities in British Columbia.
As for the Métis, we share distinct and collective cultural practices, kinship ties and history as a nation. Métis individuals and communities face structural and social inequities that directly and indirectly affect the health of our individuals and our communities.
Unfortunately, due to the historical lack and erasure of Métis people over the past 200 years, there is often a lack of Métis-specific data when it comes to epidemiology. However, there is some data that is available, and the preliminary findings are quite stark.
In 2019, Statistics Canada reported that the suicide rate among self-identified Métis is approximately twice that of the non-Indigenous population. The McCreary Centre Society reported in 2008 that over a quarter of Métis girls have deliberately self-harmed. In 2018, the increase for Métis girls participating in self-harm escalated to 42% of our young females. This report also shows that Métis youth were less likely than non-Métis youth to rate their mental health positively. Unfortunately, this is a shameful reality facing our communities.
Finally, the [Technical difficulties] report reported that Métis youth were more likely than their non-Métis peers to have considered suicide from a 24% to 17% ratio, with attempted suicide being 8% to 5% respectively.
Speaking specifically to cannabis use, data from the McCreary Society showed that Métis youth using cannabis was significantly higher than their non-Métis counterparts, with 42% of Métis youth utilizing cannabis versus 25% of their non-Métis youth counterparts.
Over the last two years, MNBC’s ministry of mental health and harm reduction has been leading a community-based research around Métis perspectives and cannabis use. Guided by community wisdom and insight, this project is working to better understand Métis patterns of cannabis use, as well as the barriers that exist when utilizing cannabis for therapeutic reasons.
Furthermore, this work seeks to reduce stigma around cannabis and helps inform the development of the Métis harm reduction framework.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Dr. Elliott. You have one minute left in your remarks.
Dr. Elliott: Perfect, I’m right on schedule.
Additionally, working through elders and an emphasis will be placed on Métis culture and traditions and connections through Métis history. As part of this work, community-led dialogue sessions have run from January through April of this year. A final report is aimed for publication in December of this year.
As Métis, we are proud, resilient people. As shared in Kaa-wiichitoyaahk: We Take Care of Each Other, Métis perspective on cultural wellness, Métis culture is a beautiful continuation of strength and resiliency of our ancestors, the joy of our family connections and passing on the teachings of elders for future generations. We are offering resilient communities that are rooted in strength of Métis culture and world views. Marsee. Thank you so much for having me here today.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Elliott. Now we’ll go to Chief Polchies to give his remarks.
Allan Polchies Jr., Sakom, Chief, St. Mary’s First Nation: Wela’lin. [Technical difficulties] first of all, from Wolastoqey territory. Allan Polchies, Sakom, Chief, from Sitansisk, St. Mary’s First Nation. I’m bringing you these greetings this morning from the unceded, unsurrendered Wolastoqey territory.
I want to thank you very much for the invitation this morning, and I hope that your spirit is keeping well.
To begin, St. Mary’s First Nation was never formally included in any federal or provincial cannabis consultations. St. Mary’s First Nation currently has 16 dispensaries operating within the community. One is a band-owned-and-operated enterprise with a second location opening soon. St. Mary’s First Nation doesn’t currently follow federal or provincial regulations, but we have our own regulations and policies in place. A more comprehensive policy is being developed as part of our upcoming licensing structure. These regulations include limited operational hours, a minimum distance from schools, playgrounds or other areas with a high concentration of minors, and a requirement that all dispensaries be member-owned and operated.
St. Mary’s First Nation is currently developing a licensing structure for dispensaries in the community to increase accountability and to ensure compliance with regulations. Cannabis dispensaries have created entrepreneurship opportunities for members and have contributed to the local economy by providing reliable and livable wages for community members.
The most noteworthy downside of these dispensaries is a limited capacity for enforcement of regulations. A couple of member-owned shops have been accused of being involved with organized crime in the form of biker gangs. This is a cause for concern among band leadership and members alike.
We are closely monitoring all ongoing safety issues within the community but currently lack enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with our policies. Unfortunately, in the early phase of cannabis legalization, there was much uncertainty around the topic, which made our band cautious with the production and distribution of cannabis in our community.
St. Mary’s First Nation would like to operate independently on a nation-to-nation basis with other Indigenous communities in the future. Our goal would be to develop capacity and provide production and training to other First Nations as well as other domestic markets. Internationally, opportunities will likely arise in the future, and we aim to be competitive in our capacity to provide goods and services to customers abroad as foreign markets begin to develop their own cannabis industry.
I’d like to note that St. Mary’s First Nation is, of course, the second-largest Wolastoqey community in the nation and the third-largest Indigenous community in New Brunswick. We’re also one of the only urban communities here in Atlantic Canada. Wela’lin.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Polchies. We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of our session. I will start by asking the first question for either or both of you to answer.
From your perspectives, what priority areas for Indigenous peoples and communities should form part of the review?
Dr. Elliott: It would be important to have the distinctions-based approach, making sure we are hearing from First Nations, Inuit and Métis as well as from the urban context. It would be important to have a few different streams — cannabis is quite a large topic — having mental health and substance use dialogues as well as that separate economic development dialogue — acknowledging that’s a huge piece and a great opportunity for job creation — and talking about how to balance that and marry them together.
I think it’s important to have equal opportunity to hear the topic from multiple different perspectives and different lenses.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Elliott. Chief Polchies, do you want to take a crack at that? From your perspective, what priority areas for Indigenous peoples and communities should form part of the review?
Mr. Polchies: Economic development is one of them but, of course, regulation is another. As I noted in my opening remarks, we need to be part of the review and how we look at that moving forward. Of course, the inherent treaty right to individuals in the community is that they feel free to operate as individual entrepreneurs. But as leadership, we need to ensure that we’re able to regulate and oversee the policies that are incorporated on the economic development side and social side as, of course, Dr. Elliott referred to.
The Chair: Thank you, both.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Good morning to everyone. My question is to whoever wants to answer, but mainly it is for Chief Polchies.
What supports or funding do Indigenous peoples and communities require to participate in the legislative review? Will this support be provided?
Mr. Polchies: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. Nice to see you.
There is no funding provided at this time that I’m aware of. Of course, we are working within our own operations here, under a retail sector of the economic development portion, to put all these policies and procedures together to work with the 16 dispensaries that I have in my community.
At this point, there is no funding available.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you think it should be required for the government to send funding?
Mr. Polchies: As I stated right out of the gate, we were never included in the Cannabis Act. To identify all of our concerns as this was being rolled out, we initiated our own intake of cannabis and realized it was becoming an influx into the community. As leadership and a governing body, we need to ensure those policies and procedures are in place. We need to hire staff and folks from the community to add to those contributions. Cannabis is now a whole sector within our operation. To ensure the safety, distribution and control of it, it needs to be monitored. Obviously, this takes dollars.
So to answer your question, yes, funding would be helpful in our goal to be successful in this industry.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Anybody else?
The Chair: Dr. Elliott?
Dr. Elliott: I think it is really important to have some funding and capacity dollars to be able to explore this. There are a lot of competing priorities. I know every bit of Canada has been touched by the toxic drug supply, but here in B.C., we are losing multiple people daily. I see it and I live it, and we are stretched thin with all the work that needs to be done. In order to do this important piece of legislation right, we need to have the capacity and the dollars to be able to give it our full attention. Right now, we are doing so many things off the sides of our desks. I hate to say it, but if I had to drop a ball, this would probably be one just because of all the competing priorities with the toxic drug supply.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Dr. Elliott and Chief Polchies. Your testimony was very important for us to hear.
What this expert panel — this legislative review — will be looking at, I believe, will be a whole variety of areas, including the question of what that situation was before the legalization of cannabis in terms of social impacts, health impacts and economic opportunities. What economic opportunities might have been under the table before but are now on top of the table? I’m curious to hear from each of you.
First, what changes have you seen since the legislation on the social, health and the economic side? What key questions do you feel this legislative review absolutely must ask?
Dr. Elliott: I think we have seen a bit of change. Part of it might be cultural. Cannabis has always been very prevalent, even prior to the legalization. I think it’s becoming more open, more brought out and discussed as a means of wellness or self-medication.
There’s been an important initiation with the dispensaries. Cannabis does have the potential to be part of the tainted drug supply.
I will defer to my colleague about the economic issues as Métis don’t have land. That’s not something that we have actively participated in from the economic side. However, there’s important work to be done, especially with our youth, around how to engage with cannabis safely and to be able to have those open conversations and to support them in making choices that are best for them. Although there are an increasing number of reported health benefits of it, for some of our youth it can be very detrimental to their mental health and well-being. We need to have further scoping, which we’re doing with some of our community engagements going forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Elliott. Chief Polchies, do you have anything you’d like to add?
Mr. Polchies: Yes, thank you. Since the act has been introduced, the cannabis industry has changed the scope of economic development, especially among the number of entrepreneurs that I have in my community.
As a band-operated operation, I’ve seen own-source revenue being generated in a positive sense where it is creating employment and providing support to the programs and services for the shortfalls of funds that we do not receive through Indigenous Services.
Regarding its shortfalls, unfortunately we’re seeing a number of youth participating in cannabis use. On the flip side of that, we’re also seeing the downside where folks are giving up smoking cigarettes, for example, and doing cannabis. We have noticed — and Dr. Elliott referred to this — the effects on mental health. They’re using cannabis in different forms. They’re using it in dabs, in bongs and in many different forms. It’s becoming socially accepted in such a way that there needs to be education about the fact that it can be done socially but not consistently.
The other social flip side we’re seeing is less use of alcohol and more use of cannabis. It’s been introduced as medicinal. That’s what a lot of folks are referring to it as, for example, for folks with cancer, as you know, and for any other ailments that you have. A lot of our older folks are using it in that capacity.
There are two different sides that it has here in my community: the health impacts and the economic development impacts.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to go to Senator Hartling in a moment but first I’ll jump in with a quick question for you, Chief Polchies.
You mentioned lack of enforcement mechanisms for your community’s policies related to cannabis. Would you please provide more details about the challenges you face concerning enforcement? What support or funding has been provided to your community to support enforcement of your laws related to cannabis?
Mr. Polchies: First, there’s the lack of enforcement. Cannabis exploded in our community. We are trying to get a hold on it by introducing regulations and policies. The dispensary owners are coming together and cooperating with the band operation. But when it comes to who’s actually supplying and whose financing these dispensaries is the issue that we’re having and the concern around this portion of it. We’re trying to find mechanisms to do that.
My First Nation has a tripartite agreement with the Fredericton city police, the province and the feds. We don’t have our own policing in the community, which is something we need to seriously look at. I understand that’s a message that’s happening across the nation and across Turtle Island in order to have a handle on the regulation.
To the question of do we receive any funding around this, again, no, we do not. It is presenting a number of challenges for us in how we do that enforcement piece because once we do any type of bylaws in our community, neither the Fredericton city police nor the provincial courts will enact those bylaws. This is the downside and where we will need the justice department and the feds to assist us.
The Chair: Thank you for that, chief.
Senator Hartling: Thank you. Good morning. It’s nice to see you. I have two questions, one for Dr. Elliott and one for Chief Polchies.
Dr. Elliott, with your position as Minister of Mental Health and Harm Reduction and Chair of Women and Gender Equity, I’m thinking about women, the issue around women and a specific aspect of the review that would relate to women. From your thoughts and your knowledge so far, would it be important to look at the gender lens? Also, what would be some of the issues you see that have impacted women over this time?
Dr. Elliott: Thank you so much for the questions. I think it’s important to always consider gender for it. We touched on something that hasn’t been raised in the conversation, namely, how this all interfaces with the criminal justice system.
I strongly believe that, historically, there have been stronger repercussions for women being caught with substances than their male counterparts.
Different aspects need to be incorporated as the different gender biases, not only what’s acceptable and what’s not but also how that impacts education, mood, moon time and reproductive age. Always having that gender lens is one of those critical pieces that sometimes we overlook, just like we overlook the distinctions-based part of it to make sure we’re capturing the whole picture.
Senator Hartling: I’m also wondering about women in relationships with others and the impact, for example, if one partner is overusing. Would that be important to look at?
Dr. Elliott: I think so. Knowing the role of substance use and how that affects home life is important. That being said, generally the use of cannabis does have an impact. We don’t think about it because it’s usually more subtle than other substances such as alcohol. You really don’t get that level of aggression with cannabis.
That being said, we do see youth with substance-induced psychosis from cannabis. It does get the Ministry of Children and Family Development, or MCFD, involved with families. I am an advocate for any medicine that helps, but we need to make sure that we’re looking at both sides. There’s no medicine, either prescription or traditional, that you don’t have to look at both sides of the coin.
Senator Hartling: Thank you. I have a question for Chief Polchies. The last time I saw you was in Toronto at the concert. Nice to see you again.
I’m thinking about New Brunswick and the differences in provinces because when I look at B.C., it has been a different province around marijuana for a long time. In New Brunswick, I’m wondering about this whole transition and if there were impacts when you started your business. The mindset in New Brunswick might be a bit different — I don’t know, I’m assuming because I live there — than in B.C.
Were there some barriers or challenges in starting the business and going forward and also the resources that you need? How is that working, especially with COVID? It’s been a different time to start a business, for sure.
Mr. Polchies: Yes, in terms of COVID, it was definitely a challenge on that front.
To your question, surprisingly enough, cannabis is accessible through the great means of our many channels of delivery services, if you will. When we were opening our cannabis shop, we were dealing with a number of folks outside the community that were accessing packages all the way from B.C. because, of course, the operation is a little more intense there than it is here in New Brunswick.
To my surprise, our shops were popping up very quickly in the community, so the supply was very plentiful. I’m not exactly sure where they were getting it because we were not regulating it at that point. They were coming as quickly as it was being produced, as I see it, but that is changing.
Just to add on to Dr. Elliott’s question around the whole substance intake for gender-based, I think it’s pretty equal. I’ve seen an increase in it during COVID. During COVID was an interesting time because, as you may or may not know, people were eating, drinking and smoking cannabis. Those were the three moneymakers that people were moving through here in New Brunswick.
As a First Nation, we were moving along that line because we needed the stream of income coming in as we were affected, like everyone else, when it came to economic development.
Senator Hartling: That is very helpful. Another thing I noted, in New Brunswick, if you want to buy cannabis for medical use, you can go through an organization that does the assessment. Then they ask where you would like to get it from. I don’t know if we know where it is in New Brunswick. Most would think B.C., but it would be important to provide that knowledge, so people know that it is in New Brunswick too, the medical side of it.
Mr. Polchies: There are operations here in New Brunswick; you just have to be able to seek them out. I’m not going to be the whistle-blower on them today, but I’m going to share with you that there are operations here in our own backyard that can facilitate the medicinal part of the product itself.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much.
Mr. Polchies: You’re welcome. Nice to see you.
Senator Tannas: Thanks very much. I had a couple of questions for Chief Polchies. Thanks to both of you for being here today.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood some of the comments that you made, chief. You mentioned there were 16, I think you said 16 dispensaries, plus a community-owned one. Is that right?
Mr. Polchies: Yes.
Senator Tannas: They are licensed by the community as opposed to the province. Is that correct?
Mr. Polchies: That’s correct.
Senator Tannas: Okay. The products at those retailers, including your own, are they kind of a mix of cannabis grown in the black and grey markets plus those that are grown in Health-Canada-approved facilities? Or are they 100% one or the other? Is there a mix that you’re seeing?
Mr. Polchies: Yes, definitely there’s a mix. There is none of the government-regulated products in our cannabis shops. We like to refer to them as the “red market,” not the “black market.” And, of course, we’re seeing many different lines of products that are coming through.
But to answer your question, there are no government-regulated products in our 16 dispensaries, or even in our band-operated dispensary. Of course, they are tested and seem to be useable and approved.
Senator Tannas: Great. One of the questions that I think a number of us have, there were a lot of promises made, and the government quite confidently said that in the legal market, they expected in excess of 20% of the growing operations to be located on First Nations lands. We’re going to look into that five years down the road and see whether or not that worked out.
Are your red market products represented to be, or guaranteed to be grown on First Nations lands?
Mr. Polchies: Well, first of all, I truly believe that the government should have just allowed Indigenous people to run with the market, and then, of course, the government would have been able to get a huge kickback from that. But they didn’t even include us, so now we are having this conversation and we’re backtracking.
This is the problem. The federal and provincial governments have to have the Indigenous people because, of course, cannabis is marijuana that is grown from Mother Earth, and we are stewards of the land, so we have a handle on that. So to develop all kinds of different products, which there are, such as gummies, the flower, as they call it, and creams, a number of different products are now available and used within these dispensaries.
Senator Tannas: Those are my questions. Thank you very much, chief.
Mr. Polchies: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. I have a question here for both of you.
In your view, do Indigenous peoples and communities have access to sufficient public health information on cannabis? Why or why not? Dr. Elliott, would you like to start?
Dr. Elliott: I think there can always be an improvement in our messaging. Just as we heard that the line of products has completely changed, it’s not just joints and bongs. There are dabs, there is shatter, but there is also a whole line of edibles and even bath products. I think it’s important to update the conversation as well as the modes in which we try to do our “public service announcements” around it and be able to update that. Again, taking that distinctions-based approach, the gender-based approach, as well as the age-based approach. We’re seeing a lot of our older population jump into the market for cannabis use as well, whether for recreation or medicinal.
Especially with the number of edibles, I think there should be some education around dosage and what’s appropriate. It is not pleasant if you are cannabis naive and you take a very strong gummy or edible. We do see people end up in the hospital due to anxiety, panic and the sequelae of that.
With the market changing so much and the variety of products, I think education and a bit more knowledge would be a huge piece of this legislation’s review.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Elliott. Chief Polchies?
Mr. Polchies: Yes, we certainly do not have the information provided to us around the public health safety of these products.
We could use more information. Of course, we do our part here in the community, and the information about the use, effects and social aspects. But to your question, no, we do not have enough information around the public health for community members, and that would be needed and noted in the comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Polchies. Any other questions from the floor?
Senator Arnot: Chief Polchies, St. Mary’s First Nation has around 2,100 members, I understand. You’re contiguous with Fredericton, New Brunswick. You have 17 dispensaries. That seems like a fairly high ratio to me. What’s the number of dispensaries that you compete with in the Fredericton area? Is it your impression that the 17 dispensaries are actually profitable and sustainable? What’s the market like? Is there a competition between off-reserve dispensaries, and how is that working? Are there some problems developing in any way with respect to that? You have a lot of entrepreneurs on your First Nation, obviously, and I’m wondering what your outlook is on how those retailers are surviving.
Mr. Polchies: That’s a good question. The cannabis industry was the novelty at the time, but it’s turning out to be very sustainable because when folks were seeing a cash-free industry and the rewards of operating, they would just start to pop up everywhere in the community.
We, as a government, put a moratorium on them because it was getting out of hand. These were mom-and-pop shops that were operating. To our surprise — this has been well over almost two years now — they’re all still operating. Some are more successful than others because it comes down to marketing, responsible sales training and their key tools for public health purposes when they’re providing the products.
I always say that St. Mary’s is a suburb of Fredericton itself, so we’re surrounded by a population of 65 to 70,000 people on a daily basis. You have to remember that we act as a hub to First Nations. The city of Fredericton is highly noted for conventions and visitors alike. We’re getting $300 million a year in tourism dollars. So when folks are visiting in our territory, they seek these products out. And, of course, our own members are using it. We encourage folks to use our products and use our services as band-operated because it becomes a social enterprise for everyone in the community.
Senator Arnot: Chief, you have regulations that you have established. Do those regulations essentially mirror the regulations that exist in non-First Nations territory, or are there any specifics that make yours different in any way or better for your community?
Mr. Polchies: The regulations are geared towards our community. To be honest with you, I have not really compared them to the provincial regulations. There is the little information that we have around health, and we have scientists and our own medical crew who will review our regulations to ensure that they are streamlined with industry standards at least.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: A couple of things have come up in your answers to a question that I’m interested in probing further, which may not be the central matter of importance for the legislative review to look at.
One that I have heard you speak about is COVID. No one expected, when we were calling for a five-year review, that we would have an intensive two-and-a-half-year lockdown period within that five-year period and the impact of COVID on behaviours related to both the economics and the social impacts of cannabis use in your communities. That’s one thing. I would like you to speak a little more about that because you have highlighted it.
I believe it was you, Chief Polchies, and Dr. Elliott who mentioned that there is a more socially acceptable feeling in the community about the use of cannabis now — not that it wasn’t used before, but it seems more socially acceptable — and that may have had an impact on possible reduction in alcohol consumption. So there is the impact on alcohol consumption, and I would like to hear about that. How does that play out on other impacts that alcohol might have in your communities?
Could you speak about both COVID and the issue of the acceptability of cannabis and its possible impact on alcohol consumption if that’s being reduced in any way, or increased?
Dr. Elliott: I think we’re still collecting data on how COVID changed everything — definitely a huge increase in eating, alcohol consumption, SkipTheDishes. Also, puzzles made a big comeback.
I think there was definitely increased use. We haven’t been able to have the community engagement to tease that out.
We know cannabis can be a very social activity for people to do, but it can also be very isolating and cause people not to interact.
It would be interesting to look at the data and hear the stories from our community. Has it made it harder for people to get back out there, re-engage with community, as all of our regulations are being changed in regard to COVID?
I’m unaware of the data. You don’t want to choose one poison for another. We do know that cannabis is more of a sedating, internal process. You don’t have that level of aggression or conflict that we see with alcohol or methamphetamine or other substances. That being said, when you have a combination of all of them on board, it’s hard to say.
I think we need to be careful and mindful about throwing all of our eggs in one basket and saying, “Oh, cannabis is the new thing. It will save everything.” I think there is a role for it, but deconstructing that and what it means and asking our community members why they reach for it in the first place. Is it because of recreation? Or is it chronic pain for which the health care system has slammed all the doors on your face? Does it have to do with decreasing anxiety? When we talk about moving forward and the legislation review, I think it’s important to look at marketing claims and what health benefits we’re actually labelling on the products.
Some of our community members have to make choices when it comes to their medicines and which ones they can afford. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Crestor is the end all and be all, but sometimes, especially for our elders, it comes down to making the choice between their diabetes medication or utilizing cannabis to help with PTSD, anxiety or chronic neuropathic pain.
That was another comment I wanted to add regarding your question.
Mr. Polchies: To touch on the COVID question, because I did bring it up and we did see an increase in the use of cannabis. As you may be aware or not about operations like SkipTheDishes, there were delivery services delivering products at the door step. As we were all isolating in our homes and had very limited access, this became a way of using it for a relaxation state to deal with anxiety and to cope with the home front where those folks that have children were trying to maintain some sort of mental stability. That’s where we’ve seen some of the increase in the use of cannabis itself.
There is no funding available for any research on our front to compile data about the consumption of alcohol. As I mentioned earlier, we saw an increase with young folks consuming both cannabis products and alcohol products. Funding would be a key component to allow us to gather the data, as Dr. Elliott said, and to bring in some research studies so that we can get a handle on it. It will work differently between territories because of the population base and the folks dealing with certain types of addictions or illnesses and based on geographical locations.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Dr. Elliott and Chief Polchies for meeting with us today.
Mr. Polchies: Wela’lin.
Dr. Elliott: Thank you.
The Chair: On our next panel of witnesses we have, from the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation, Carol Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer; from Tsow-Tun Le Lum Society we have Nola Jeffrey, Executive Director; and from Peepeekisis Cree Nation, we have Colin Stonechild, Headman, Peepeekisis Cree Nation. Ms. Hopkins, Ms. Jeffrey and Mr. Stonechild will provide opening remarks of up to five ministers each. We will then move to a question and answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time and I will give notice when one minute is left in the five-minute period for questions and answers. I apologize if I have to cut you off. Unfortunately, we have a tight schedule. In the event that happens, I invite witnesses to send their written responses to the clerk before next Tuesday, October 11.
I will now invite Ms. Hopkins to give her remarks.
Carol Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer, Thunderbird Partnership Foundation: [Indigenous language spoken]. Good morning. I’m joining you from the Lenape Nation, otherwise known as the Delaware Nation at Moraviantown in southwestern Ontario.
I want to say a bit about Thunderbird Partnership Foundation. We’re a national organization in Canada supporting First Nations in the space of mental wellness. We draw our mandate from three frameworks: Honouring Our Strengths, a renewed framework to address substance use among First Nations in Canada; the Indigenous Wellness Framework, which promotes 13 measurable indicators to understand the impact of culture in facilitating wellness — and those outcomes are defined as hope, belonging, meaning and purpose — and also the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework.
Today I will present data that we’ve gathered from First Nations populations in Canada through three primary instruments.
From the national network of adult and youth treatment centres, we have the Addictions Management Information System. I’ll be presenting data from that system.
We also have a community-based First Nations Opioid and Methamphetamine Survey, which talks about polysubstance use, including cannabis. And we have a cannabis-specific survey for youth and adults. We collected data before the regulation of cannabis, and we’ve revised that survey to collect data post-regulation.
Key themes that emerge from all of these data sources are that it’s important to understand cannabis within polysubstance use. Targeted interventions specific to cannabis are not reflective of the reality of cannabis use among First Nations people. We also have information about parental cannabis use, which shows more responsible patterns of adults with children.
There’s an increasing understanding of cannabis as an important element of harm reduction. We also have data that compares cannabis use pre-COVID and then during the pandemic. There is a call for more education and resources — specifically, increased resources around public health capacity within First Nations communities.
From the Addictions Management Information System, we know that cannabis use has increased from pre-COVID times by about 10%, with 76% of adults entering treatment for addiction report regular cannabis use, and 82% for youth.
In terms of polysubstance use, as I said, it’s important to understand cannabis in terms of its use with other substances in order to inform a public health intervention design. Among adults, cannabis is regularly reported along with alcohol and tobacco. For adults who use opioids, the most reported use of other substances with opioids is alcohol and then cannabis at 25%. For adults using methamphetamines, they report that along with methamphetamine use, cannabis is used 33%, so a bit higher use of cannabis along with methamphetamines.
For parents who use cannabis, in the past two years, we’ve seen that 52% of First Nations seeking treatment for addictions, report using cannabis 10 or more times per month, but a majority are using 20 or more times per month, so almost on a daily basis. And 50% of that population reported having dependent children and also having legal issues. However, this pattern is statistically significant because these parents showed the lowest proportion of cannabis use as compared to those who used 20 or more times a month and who have no dependants or legal issues.
In terms of cannabis as an important element of harm reduction, there’s increased knowledge among First Nations around the concept of harm reduction. In terms of harms related to polysubstance use, we have to be mindful that they can be devastating to families and communities, especially for people who are using drugs. However, cannabis is seen as a more effective alternative to more harmful substances. Families of people who use opioids or methamphetamines believe it’s less harmful than opioids or methamphetamines.
We also see the coming together of culture-based practices with cannabis. Land-based services support First Nations in the land-based service in terms of unregulated cannabis use, understanding it as a method of harm reduction.
People believe that cannabis is an alternative to opioids. It can help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms of opioids and reduce their substance use in other areas.
First Nations report that medical cannabis can be very effective, but 29% said they don’t have access. In terms of the cannabis rate among youth and adults, they report using cannabis to address stress, anxiety and unresolved trauma. These were the most significant issues that people reported experiencing during COVID-19.
The Chair: Ms. Hopkins, I’m sorry; your time is up. We’re on a tight timeline today.
I’ll now invite Ms. Jeffrey to give her remarks.
Nola Jeffrey, Executive Director, Tsow-Tun Le Lum Society: Good morning. I am Coast Salish and was born in a little village 20 miles north of Fort Rupert. I live on Vancouver Island. The three original families on this island are the Coast Salish, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakiutl people.
I work at a healing house called Tsow-Tun Le Lum. It is a Hul’qumi’num word for “helping house.” We have been in operation for over 34 years. It was started by the three families on the island way back in the late 1970s, early 1980s, because people thought alcohol was the problem, and there was high alcohol use. We know now that our people use alcohol, marijuana and opioids to self-medicate because of the trauma they faced and the historical trauma.
Currently, we run a substance misuse program and a trauma program. Things have changed since COVID. We used to do rotating intakes, but now we do intakes at the same time, on the same day. We never did drug testing before, but once COVID started, we began doing drug testing since withdrawal symptoms could look a lot like COVID symptoms and we wanted to know what people had in their systems.
Our program is abstinence based. Our goal is to have people in sobriety so they can live the best life they possibly can. We bring in individuals, both male and female, from across British Columbia and the Yukon. We also work with Correctional Service Canada to bring people from the institutions into our healing home. We started doing drug testing. We really appreciate all the data, Ms. Hopkins, that you brought forward. But what we saw was almost all of the people coming in for substance use had cannabis in their system, as well as many other drugs.
We found that people coming into the trauma program, some of them also had cannabis in their systems. The criteria to get into our trauma program is to be in sobriety for six months, and that’s not using any medicinal cannabis, so no THC or CBD. Many people have tested positive. We find it very problematic because people are angry with us because of our policies.
Our policies are set by our board. Our board is made up of nine community members that come from the three nations, as well as another community member that comes from the Mohawk nation that represents the urban population. We serve Indigenous, Métis and Inuit people.
One of the things, there are people who say that they have not used marijuana but they live in a home where people are using marijuana. I’ve talked to medical people who say that even though you have not ingested marijuana yourself, that you can still test positive. For me, I have a huge concern around that, especially when you’re talking about families and children, and even the elderly, that they’re ingesting that and it’s showing in their urinalysis, that they’re testing positive.
My other concern is most people live below the poverty line. Cannabis is a very expensive product that people use. I worry about the families and people going without, not having the proper food and the proper care.
I would also agree that during COVID, it impacted us in many ways. What it did is it put many of our people into anxiety. There are a couple of reasons for that. It isn’t very long ago, especially in British Columbia, the history of diseases coming through here and wiping out a huge portion of our population.
I believe in epigenetics, or blood memory, which would have had a huge impact on who we are as a people, and then putting us into isolation. It replicated the taking away of the children who went into residential schools and day schools, or were completely taken and given to other families. It had a huge impact not just on our mental health, but our spiritual, emotional and physical health as well. My belief is that people are using substances to cope with that trauma that they’ve suffered to face life. I think that the uptake of substances, including cannabis, went up.
I love that Ms. Hopkins has those statistics, because I’m just going on my experience of what I see in our healing house. It causes me concern. As you heard from the other people before me, Indigenous, Métis and Inuit people were not consulted when cannabis became legal. I think we need to look at both sides of things and say, okay, is this helping or is this causing harm? How much harm is it causing? I don’t think we have enough data on the kinds of harm.
I do know the reason why people choose to pick up, why they’re choosing to use.
The Chair: Ms. Jeffrey, you have one minute left.
Ms. Jeffrey: I just wanted to say I don’t think that the use of cannabis has stopped the use of alcohol, because people are using both. It’s been known to be a gateway to using other drugs. So I worry about our youth and their use.
Even for myself, you can’t walk the streets in B.C. without having a big whiff of cannabis come into your face, so I have concerns around that.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jeffrey. I will now invite Mr. Stonechild to give his remarks.
Colin Stonechild, Headman, Peepeekisis Cree Nation: [Indigenous language spoken]. I shake all your hands. I welcome you.
First and foremost, I would like to thank you for the invite. I’ve heard all sides — the spiritual side, the addiction side and the economic side. I can speak to all. My main concern, and the main points I want to address, is based on the economics and being able to create opportunity and sovereignty for our people.
Listening to Ms. Jeffrey and Ms. Hopkins, I appreciate the data. I’m in the Prairies. A lot of the issues we face as Indigenous people, it all stems back to trauma in residential school. As a leader of my community, the only way that we face these obstacles is through economics, I believe. Across the board throughout treaty nations, we’re just not funded enough. There’s not enough money for those programs that help our people through addictions and trauma, things like that.
For us, my First Nation, it was the basis of being able to create jobs and opportunities for people, development of the land and our own laws, our self-determination as a First Nation to be able to create opportunity and the economic development, or Ec Dev.
Speaking to the health side, I know a lot of people throughout British Columbia — I’m currently in Kamloops; my partner is in the interior of British Columbia — the thing is, the street drugs, the hard drugs, the meth and fentanyl, they’re starting to mix these into the black market for marijuana, cannabis.
I don’t like to say, “lesser of two evils.” I’ve heard some of the past speakers talk of that. I don’t believe that. As leaders, we’re never going to combat the black market. It’s vitally important that we put a safe product out there for our community members. That’s the key, knowing what our membership is using, labelling and all of the safety issues behind that, and operating in the grey, black or red market that I heard them speak of.
For us, being able to have our own self-determination, sovereignty and laws is key to being able to create that, and address the poverty issues in our communities and keep our people safe, our young people who are using cannabis.
We don’t have the raw data like Ms. Hopkins had. As I said, our communities, we’re evolving as fast as we can. We live in the West, and our people are poor. Our nation was poor for many years. There are things that are changing now with our cannabis laws, opportunity and other things that are evolving in our communities to be able to collect the data.
We work with our health department to put out notices when there’s bad black-market marijuana; we try and put out notifications of what it looks like.
Also, harm reduction is a big thing. For me, experiencing losing my two older siblings to street drugs, opioids, it’s key that I’ve been educating myself for a number of years. I really believe, if I would have explored this with my older siblings, I think they’d still be here with us.
I don’t believe that cannabis is a bad product when it is used properly, medically or recreationally. For us, elders are some of our best clients for pain reduction THC, gummies, oils, drops, rubs and some of the bath products. It’s all based around being able to create opportunity and keeping our membership safe.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stonechild. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. I will open with asking Ms. Hopkins a question.
Could you please provide the committee with additional information about the surveys and data that you cited in your presentation? You mentioned surveys undertaken before COVID as well as one currently under way.
Ms. Hopkins: Yes. The Addictions Management Information System is a system used by the majority of the treatment centres in Canada. When the pandemic hit, we quickly adapted the system and changed some of the coding for services so that we could specifically filter the data to examine and compare pre-COVID and during COVID. That is an ongoing system; we’ll always have that data.
The First Nations Opioid and Methamphetamine Survey was a survey that, fortunately, we were able to implement during the pandemic. It was amazing that we had the communities that we engaged with. They engaged because the survey came along with educational resources that were population-specific to youth, adults, seniors and the workforce. It also promoted this understanding of polysubstance use. We continue to implement that survey. It was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
The cannabis survey was funded through the cannabis branch of Health Canada. We were funded to host and facilitate regional dialogue around cannabis with First Nations prior to the pandemic, and we supplemented those focus groups with a survey and delivered a national report. That was pre-regulation. After regulation, within the last two years, we were funded to make adaptations to that community-based cannabis survey, which also captures data around polysubstance use, looking at access and availability resources, reasons why people use and what people thought were the best forms of getting information to help them understand cannabis and all of its properties, what it’s used for and its impacts. That survey was revised and implemented again in late 2021. We have data that we can compare pre-regulation and post-regulation. We continue to implement that survey. Again, it comes with a number of educational resources.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Very interesting.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you and welcome. My question is pretty personal. Do you think that cannabis should be prescribed by doctors for pain instead of opioids? Should it be prescribed by doctors?
Ms. Hopkins: My answer is yes. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations had a national cannabis forum early in regulation, and what we heard there was that access to medical cannabis was preferred by First Nations. In fact, the comparison with veterans in Canada who are prescribed cannabis to address post-traumatic stress disorder was used as an advocacy point to say that First Nations dealing with intergenerational trauma are already using cannabis significantly, unregulated, for self-medication. A better strategy would be if First Nations had access to medical cannabis. There was a report — I can’t remember the author — presented at that forum and the study found good results with cannabis reducing the cravings for opioids. One of the huge issues with withdrawals of opioids and methamphetamines specifically is managing those cravings and returning to use without any supports or access to mental wellness and opioid agonist treatment, that cannabis can be a safe alternative.
Where that has been tested, specifically among physicians — I know of a practice in Manitoba where they have seen good success with supporting people in their withdrawal from opioids. However, withdrawal and recovery is a long-term journey. First Nations did not have the resources to purchase the medically regulated cannabis, so they always reverted back to other substance use because they couldn’t sustain the treatment. There is good evidence to say that cannabis can be effective in addressing trauma but also for managing withdrawal and cravings related to other substances.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I know that doctors will now prescribe opioids or other drugs without hesitation or thinking that maybe this person should access marijuana so the person wouldn’t have to use these hard drugs.
Mr. Stonechild: I want to supplement Ms. Hopkins. She talked about the Manitoba group and Dr. Shelley Turner at Ekosi Health. I’ve worked with her and talked to her many times about the research. They have lots of data and research. They do have plans. It does battle opioids, other communicable diseases and chronic pain. There’s research, data and professionals within Canada. Dr. Shelley Turner at Ekosi Health in Gillam, Manitoba. They have presented at AFN, and I’ve seen them in Kelowna at the cannabis summit there as well. I’m very in tune with that. Moving forward, I think if anybody has any questions, Dr. Shelley Turner of Gillam, Manitoba is who we talk to about that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.
Ms. Jeffrey: When we have trauma and we hold trauma in our bodies, it also causes physical pain. If we do healing around that, if we come in and work on that trauma, it also lessens that physical pain because that energy needs to move. It stays stuck in the body until it’s moved in the right way. I’ve seen culture and ceremony help move that trauma. There are other ways of lessening pain without taking a pill, drugs or other things.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses. As you are aware, we are here as a committee looking at what’s going to be important for this legislative review of the Cannabis Act. You’re really helping us with that. I have a couple of questions, and I’d like to hear from each of you on this.
From your perspective, each of you coming from a very important point of view, what are the priority areas for the Indigenous peoples and communities that you work with? What are the absolute priorities, the must-study, must-look-at areas for this review? I’d like to hear from each of you about what those priorities are, and then I have a follow-up.
Mr. Stonechild: Priorities for our community would be based on safety and also breaking the poverty line and creating opportunity for our people.
Being able to bridge that gap in the review of the cannabis law, the legislation that you’re working on or reviewing, it’s important to be able to — and I have heard them talk about when Canada implemented this duty to consult First Nations. I think we would be a lot further down the road as First Nations, and our economics would be a lot better if we didn’t have those barriers within the regions that the previous speakers had and we had to take these stances on our own inherent rights and our own self-determination.
I think it’s key, and I think moving forward with the government of the day, and we speak of reconciliation, and we speak of some of the recommendations from UNDRIP about being able to get us out of that poverty line, and I think being inclusive to all of our citizens within Canada is very important, and respecting our treaties and being able to have not so many of these roadblocks and barriers that really create — to have that treaty relationship, and being able to have that relationship with our governments, sovereignty and nation-to-nation building is key and important.
I really think on the economic side, when we include everybody, we have a lot of — and I do believe in business. I have businesses that when there is competition, the business is better, the quality of the products is better, the safety of our products go up. I think that the inclusiveness of our people is very important on that.
Ms. Jeffrey: I agree with Mr. Stonechild saying that we need to be included; our voices have to be heard at all levels. We have to be the ones making the decisions on what is best for the health and well-being of our communities.
I think we need to listen to what our elders and our cultural people are bringing forward, because I really believe that culture saves lives and that it has to be done from our perspective, our world view.
It makes me sad that we have been put on little pieces of land, especially here in B.C., what they call “reserves.” Our traditional territories are so small, and the ability to create economic development is really small, and so many nations are having to look at this as an opportunity to bring money into the communities, because we have heard from several people that our people live in poverty, and it’s below the poverty line.
My focus is always on the children, because there are upcoming generations, and how do we provide a holistic and healthy life for them? My hope is it would be one free of substance use or the dependence on substances. Maybe people use recreationally.
But we have to have our voices heard, and we have to be included. We can’t be an afterthought, and we still are an afterthought, unfortunately.
Thank you.
Ms. Hopkins: The most critical and most useful thing that could be studied in relation to cannabis and First Nations is the equity. There has to be an equitable response, no matter whether it’s in the governance of cannabis, in community governments, or whether it’s in the equity in terms of regulation, but also equity for the community.
First Nations communities who know the benefits and want to use medical cannabis, don’t have access to it. There is no equity in access, and it has to be considered along a continuum of care. Recovery from addiction is not a one-time experience. It takes many attempts, and every tool and resource that is available to the rest of Canada must be available to First Nations as well. Medical cannabis, whether it’s to address trauma or to deal with withdrawal of opioids and methamphetamine, or because it’s recreational use to deal with everyday stress, it has to be available to our population.
As well, the equity in bringing First Nations culture, so addressing epistemic racism that says there is no quality evidence around Indigenous knowledge and culture-based practices. I didn’t get to report on that today, but we do have evidence that culture does work. It does create an increased balance of hope, belonging, meaning and purpose. That’s the Indigenous definition of “wellness.” We do have that evidence, and it has to be recognized that culture works, and we have to invest more funds in land-based, culture-based, Indigenous-based services while we are working on managing the impact of harmful drugs in our communities.
We cannot continue to criminalize people for colonization. We cannot continue to criminalize First Nations people because of the trauma that they carry from colonization that is still present today. We cannot continue to criminalize people because they don’t have access to equitable services in their community. There are no services in communities to address opioids and methamphetamine, and First Nations communities are desperate. In that environment, people will use what they can to cope. Unregulated cannabis becomes one of those sources. Contaminated drugs exist across Canada in rural and remote communities, and those communities don’t have access to resources. There has to be equity.
Two more points: The workforce in the community does not exist, so that public health approach that can help First Nations communities with cannabis and the other substances that are being used, have to be considered as well. How does a community that does not have access to public health resources facilitate wellness of the community, whether that wellness includes substance use, health or abstinence?
There is a spectrum. First Nations people have a right to make their own decisions about where they fall on that spectrum, whether it is abstinence or whether it is substance use health, and they are using recreationally.
Finally, First Nations need support for data sovereignty. The Thunderbird Partnership Foundation, I’ve talked about the survey instruments that we are using to collect data, but it takes a lot of work to collect that data, because communities do not have the capacity. First Nations communities need capacity to participate in data collection and surveillance around substances.
Thank you.
Senator Coyle: All three of you have touched on my next question, and I really appreciate these very important answers that you’re giving.
Headman Stonechild, you spoke about the treaty relationship, about UNDRIP, about the duty to consult. Ms. Jeffrey, you have talked about the importance to take into account poverty and also the Indigenous world view and focus on children and youth. And, Ms. Hopkins, you spoke about all of the various manifestations of equity which are not there, which absolutely must be there, including the capacity to participate meaningfully in the collection of essential data that you just ended with. Those are all very important points.
So to those points, with this legislative review, what supports, be they financial or otherwise — and Senator Lovelace Nicholas had mentioned the financial earlier in our previous panel — but what supports, financial or otherwise, do you believe Indigenous peoples and communities would require in order to really participate meaningfully in this legislative review?
I would like to hear from whomever would like to speak to that.
Mr. Stonechild: I think a lot of the issues that we face as First Nations people — it’s right across the board, and we see it. It’s epidemic. It’s mental health.
I think that we put supports into mental health and education of addictions, wellness, and being able to create that opportunity to give our people those tools that we’ve all spoken of. It’s key that we have those mental health supports and Ms. Hopkins said the equity and the capacity to be able to bring these safe products. We do have a medical dispensary but not everyone can afford them and they will go to the black market regardless of what we do. Being able to have those resources, the medical marijuana, if it’s funded through our health department or through our dispensary for patients that have been prescribed, it’s key that we have that and financial boosts everywhere, across the board. Mental health and addictions are key.
Ms. Hopkins: I would add an investment in a First Nations community workforce. The funding formula for funding community-based programs is outdated. It’s based on population only with an escalator for remoteness. It doesn’t reflect the epidemiology that exists among First Nations. We know significant trauma. It has been reported over and over again, through missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, through residential school experiences, through boil-water advisories, through the lack of housing, over incarceration in the justice system. We know the over-representation of First Nations people in all of these systems related to unresolved trauma. However, we do not have the workforce in our communities to address trauma. We don’t have capacity.
We did a study of the First Nations workforce in mental wellness and addictions and they are paid 45% less than their provincial counterparts, and yet we have our services that deliver services through standards of excellence and go through accreditation processes. So they offer high-quality services. We have the data that I presented to show we understand the need, but we also have the data that reports on the outcomes. We have a qualified workforce that are certified in core competencies, yet we are underpaid by 45% compared to provincial counterparts.
We need capacity in First Nations communities to support public health approaches, to address mental wellness and addiction issues. Without that workforce and equitable compensation, we’re not going to get very far, and that has to be considered in your study related to cannabis.
The Chair: I want to clarify that the question was about participating in the legislative review.
Ms. Jeffrey, do you want to take a crack at it?
Ms. Jeffrey: We need resources to be able to participate. We also need to educate people. For instance, I got this invitation just this past Thursday. I was in Ottawa doing cultural support for reconciliation day. I don’t know how much notice anyone else was given, but we need time to be able to prepare.
I keep going back to culture because I have seen what culture and ceremony do in saving lives. I was part of the truth and reconciliation. I have been in this field for over 23 years and I have a very strong belief in Creator and in the ancestors and in our culture. We keep talking about trauma and the harms that were caused, and it impacts us at all levels — spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically. People that come into our healing house, they don’t feel like they belong. They don’t feel like they’re important. They don’t feel like they have a place. They feel that their lives have no meaning. When they reconnect and start learning about who they are as a people and reconnect to the culture, the land and the ceremonies, they start having that sense of — I don’t know if I want to call it pride, but they know they are important, they belong, they are part of something bigger.
I have other methodologies. I have clinical counsellors. I use other methodologies. But when we do a report with people that come in on how well we did, the first thing they report is that they loved was the elders and the cultural aspect and the second was the food. Having healthy food was really important.
I know I’m supposed to be answering the question of how we get people to participate at this level, but we need notice, to be included and resources to be able to attend and have our voicers forward. I would love to see our elders, and cultural people involved in this.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much. I’m going to maybe start something that I will ask at every session we have about this, because I think it will be interesting to know what people think.
We have heard — and I remember five years ago when this legislation was up — a lot of testimony around the things we talked about today trauma, addiction, and mental health in communities. We had some elders group that said, “Don’t do this. This will make things worse.”
At some point when we do the legislative review, it might be interesting to know what the consensus is. Can each of you tell me from your own perspective, has the legalization of cannabis made things better or worse?
Mr. Stonechild: I’ll jump in there. From my experience — and I can’t speak for other regions of Canada or even to the next reserve down the road from us — some of our biggest supporters in harm reduction and cannabis were our elders. We did livestream consultation with all our community members on and off. Some of our biggest patrons and people we support are our old people. Hands on, they’re the ones that have some of the worst trauma in our community. They are the most dysfunctional, nepotism, lateral violence, things like that. If we were to do the consultations and collect data like Ms. Hopkins has, I think it has gotten better for our community. Even within my own family, I know we have used cannabis products to help curb that edge of addictions in drugs. I think economically, we’ve created a lot of jobs and it has benefited our people, and it has brought a level of safety to our community.
I understand the cultural side. I grew up participating in ceremony. I’m a traditional singer. I’ve been all over. Regardless of what we do, we will never keep our communities 100% clean, no matter what kind of resources we have. I’m not trying to speak negatively on living a clean, spiritual life, but in reality, we’re never going to keep it clean. We are never going to get everyone 100% clean. But building with spiritually and culture is key to having a healthy community. Truly, at the end of the day, for our community it has helped; but for it to be better, I think we need more supports.
Enhancement of all our programming through health and addictions and the research and data that Ms. Hopkins and other communities across the board have and being able to have that medicine chest within our treaties and being able to share that data is key to being able to move forward and evolve. It’s a working legislation piece. I wish that some of our legislation would have evolution to them, but I think it’s good that we’re here and it’s key that we work on that.
Ms. Hopkins: I would like to add that when we were having the national dialogue about cannabis across the country, we did not have consensus — as you say — about the relationship between cannabis and culture. That’s because there is no one culture. There are many Indigenous cultures, as there are many Indigenous nations of people.
So there are some First Nations cultures — original culture, sacred culture — that exist in our sacred ceremonial societies that do have knowledge about the use of cannabis in ceremony to facilitate healing. We have these medicine societies who have an understanding of medicines. From a cultural lens and Indigenous knowledge lens, it might not be the same cannabis we have today, but it was cannabis. They had use of cannabis, whether it was hemp or cannabis. They had knowledge of how to use it as medicine, clothing or tools to facilitate healing and wellness of the land or the people or to sustain their livelihood and daily living skills in some way. That isn’t consistent across the country because, again, there is no one Indigenous culture. There are many.
When you ask about how cannabis, writ large, fits alongside culture, you’re always going to see differences. That is the same as it is for Canada. There is no one population that says cannabis should be available for everyone, although we have this legislation. There is an agreement that cannabis has to be regulated. As you divide the powers between federal and provincial governments, you need to recognize First Nations governments — those distinct nations of people with their own understanding of their relationship with the land and how they understand and use medicines. That cultural strength has to be relied on in the review of the legislation.
I will go back to the resources that I talked about before. There have to be resources to support the conversation that is inclusive of First Nations people. We don’t currently have the workforce in our communities. There has to be a process of engagement with First Nations to have those conversations, but First Nations need to be supported, acknowledged and recognized for their role in this space. Whether it’s the federal or provincial side, First Nations have a role to play. I’m talking from sea to sail. There is a role for First Nations people.
I want to finish with this one point that when the opioid crisis was not even declared a crisis yet, I sat before the House of Commons, advocating for Suboxone to be on the Non-Insured Health Benefits, or NIHB, formulary so it could be accessible to First Nations people. Although there was plenty of evidence in the world already about Suboxone and its effectiveness for managing withdrawals of opioids, it was not made available to First Nations. When it was made available, it was by exception.
I have been invited, fortunately enough, to sit with the Senate or the House of Commons in various conversations. We know that cannabis can work in managing withdrawals. We know there is a crisis. There is the pandemic crisis, but there is also the crisis of death — unnecessary death — from opioids, methamphetamine and other substances that can be mitigated by access to cannabis. There is good evidence to support that. It’s already being used in federal programs, as I said, for veterans.
I’m hoping that there will be some recognition that cannabis can be one of those tools that we should also have the right to.
Senator Tannas: Would I mark you down as better as opposed to worse? It would be interesting to know what the consensus is at the end of this — if things have improved markedly or if they just haven’t. That’s okay too.
Ms. Hopkins: I would agree with the previous panel’s comments. There are devastating impacts of cannabis on pregnancy and on youth and youth development. There is psychosis and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. I don’t have the data on that yet, but that is one of the factors we are looking for in our second implementation of the national cannabis survey. We are looking at what the experience of First Nations with digestive issues from chronic cannabis use is. Weight loss is another. There are significant factors, but those factors also — I mean, death compared to a stomach ache; death compared to psychosis. I can’t answer that question about better or worse. There are good things, and there are harmful things.
Ms. Jeffrey: I would say the same thing as Ms. Hopkins. I don’t know if you can say it’s better or worse. I agree there are good things and bad things. Remember, again, that I’m coming from a philosophy of abstinence-based, but I also realize and see the worth of harm reduction and those other things.
The other thing I look at is the fact that a lot of laws and regulations got put in place about smoking and second- and third-hand smoking. I don’t know if we are looking at that yet with cannabis. I cannot walk down the street — not even once — without getting five big blasts of marijuana, which I personally don’t like. I don’t like the smell or taste of it. I don’t like it. And then I worry about the babies and the youth who are ingesting this. They are not making that choice, and they’re ingesting it anyway.
Because it’s legal, people now feel they have the absolute right to use it. I have had a lot of problems with people — even the referral workers — coming into our healing house and saying they have a right. What I say to people is that alcohol is legal, and I’m not allowing anyone to have a hot toddy before they go to bed.
I can’t answer it. I see the benefits, but I also see where it causes problems.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for meeting with us today.
Colleagues, as a reminder, our next meeting on this topic is tomorrow, Wednesday, October 5, at 6:45 p.m. I also want to mention that all steering members agreed to accept written briefs on this study until November 4, 2022.
The meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)