THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 5, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:50 p.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: Good evening. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to introduce the members who are participating today: Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Boniface from Ontario, Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia, Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick, Senator Martin from British Columbia, Senator Pate from Ontario and Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
I would like to ask the witnesses joining us 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 would also like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed. However, the official proceedings can be shared via the SenVu website.
Today, we are here to continue 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 act received Royal Assent in June 2018.
With that, I would like to introduce our witnesses. With us today we have Tonya Perron, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke; and Ken Watts, Elected Chief Councillor, Tseshaht First Nation. Each witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. 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 roughly one minute left of their allocated time. I will also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the five-minute period for questions and answers.
In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I invite them to send a written response to the clerk before Friday, November 4, 2022.
I will now invite Chief Perron to give her remarks.
Tonya Perron, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:keThank you, Mr. Chair. [Kanyen’kéha spoken] Greetings. I would like to thank you all for extending the invitation to me to come before the committee and present some of the concerns and impacts that the Cannabis Act has had on Kahnawà:ke particularly.
Canada’s legalization of cannabis through the enactment of the Cannabis Act was meant to address and resolve certain issues Canada was facing regarding the illicit market. Unfortunately, it has had an adverse impact on Kahnawà:ke, particularly, and on First Nations. Rather than resolving any of these issues, it has actually amplified them and added to those issues.
Two of the objectives of the Cannabis Act were to protect public safety and health, as well as to provide for the establishment of “a diverse and competitive industry.” That is a quote directly from the report. Unfortunately, it has failed to meet those objectives in my community of Kahnawà:ke. I will explain very quickly why.
There have been significant impacts with respect to public health and public safety in our jurisdiction — all of this with no economic benefit. Contrary to the objective of the act — to protect youth — the legalization of cannabis has actually led to a normalization or de-stigmatization of the product, and it has led to an increase in youth use in our community, particularly with respect to edibles. Edibles are not available in Quebec, so it has opened up a market in that sense, particularly targeted at the youth it seems. Very disturbingly, many of those edible products and other products actually contain synthetic cannabinoids, which increase the dangers to health.
As I mentioned, there is an illicit market that has appeared in our communities, particularly with respect to the edibles, and it seems to be targeting the youth.
With respect to our policing, we already have understaffed and underfunded peacekeepers. I believe there are currently 36 peacekeepers. We would probably need 14 more just to cover the whole territory. We have about 80,000 to 100,000 cars that come through our territory every day. Added to that are the additional issues that our police force have been encountering with respect to the legalization, such as impaired driving. Impaired driving now has the element of cannabis impairment, and our police force does not have all the adequate equipment for it. Also, they’ve been getting an increase in the number of calls for drug‑related incidents and potential illicit activity going on.
There has also been increased work required by our peacekeepers in terms of the community pressures regarding the sale or, better yet, the lack thereof in the community. We do not have any dispensaries currently operating in Kahnawà:ke. There is this pressure from the community pushing for it, and the peacekeepers are required to get involved in that. So that costs additional manpower as well as resources.
The Cannabis Act itself disregards the First Nations’ rights to self-determination and jurisdiction in that it didn’t create a possibility for First Nations to actually regulate the industry outside of the federal and provincial legislative frameworks. That has led to some of the problems and issues that are arising. We are trying as best as we can to gain control of them.
We do have an MOU with Canada, and that MOU was a response to the lack of consultation and the gaps we saw with the act. The MOU is, unfortunately, very limited in scope; it really focuses on exchange of information between Health Canada and our Cannabis Control Board. That’s really the extent of it. So it didn’t really touch upon jurisdiction or anything more.
There is no diverse or competitive industry in Kahnawà:ke, particularly in retail. The monopoly in retail is with the SQDC, the Société québécoise du cannabis — with Quebec’s dispensaries — and Quebec has effectively locked First Nations out of that opportunity by way of section 62 of Quebec’s Cannabis Regulations Act. The only way to operate legally within Quebec would be to have an agreement with Quebec.
We have made efforts in Kahnawà:ke to curb the illicit market in the territory. We’ve imposed a moratorium and created our own law. We have our Cannabis Control Board. We’ve made numerous attempts at entering into an agreement with Quebec, to no avail. Now the pressure is building in the community, given the fact that there are no economic opportunities there for community members.
So, in effect, it’s been a no-win situation in Kahnawà:ke. We have been required to put in enormous resources and efforts at protecting the public and protecting and securing our jurisdiction, while not seeing any economic benefits.
Of course, all of this is also tied to a lack of funding and resources. We spoke with our community services, and they haven’t been offered or tapped into any resources for the issues regarding the youth. Our chief peacekeeper has not received any additional funds. All of this was confirmed with both.
Moving forward, we need to have more accessible direct funding. We would need that to help with the additional burdens that this legalization has placed on our community.
We require, of course, more education and awareness around cannabis. A lot of people are not sure what is legal and what is illegal, as strange as that sounds. Often you speak to people and they say, “Cannabis is legal now.” Yes, it’s legal to possess up to a certain amount for personal consumption but, beyond that, there are still things that are illegal. There is still some confusion there, or maybe it is ignorant bliss for some. But we definitely need to have more in terms of campaigning. There is absolutely the need for legislative reform in the sense of a carve-out within the act itself for First Nations that want to go the way some are going in terms of regulating — to have that direct access to the Health-Canada-licenced products within their own territories and not through the provinces. Essentially, we need to be part of the solution throughout this review and even well beyond it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Perron. We will now invite Wahmeesh Ken Watts to give his remarks.
Wahmeesh Ken Watts, Elected Chief Councillor, Tseshaht First Nation: Thank you. [Indigenous language spoken]. My name is Wahmeesh. My English name is Ken Watts. I’m the elected chief councillor here at the Tseshaht First Nation in Port Alberni. My mother is Matilda Atleo, and my father is the late George Watts.
Tseshaht First Nation has over 1,200 members. We are one of the 14 member nations of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council on the West Coast of Vancouver Island.
I should note that I also represent the B.C. First Nations cannabis working group on behalf of the First Nations Summit.
I want to start by saying kleco to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for the study and implementation of the Cannabis Act and the invitation to present to you all. Kleco to the other witnesses, including Manny, for taking my wardrobe notes on his shirt and vest matching me today. I would like to acknowledge that I’m here on Tseshaht territory in Port Alberni along the Tsuma-as River behind me, acknowledging the chiefs, matriarchs, senators, staff and all residential school survivors.
For Tseshaht First Nation, we opened one of the first Indigenous-owned-and-operated provincially licensed retail cannabis stores in British Columbia. We at Tseshaht committed to playing nicely in the sandbox and to show that nations and governments can work together, but ultimately, the government regulations and laws, both provincially and federally, are not only failing the industry but nations involved in the industry.
In British Columbia, we have a black and grey market, as well as what some have referred as a red market: Indigenous nations simply asserting their title and rights, including their own members, to cannabis.
Federally, for the Cannabis Act, I think there are many improvements that can be made. Many of the concerns this committee flagged in their 2018 report on Bill C-45 have not been addressed. Canada needs to embrace the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Bill C-15 and affirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples to exercise jurisdiction over cannabis, including the enactment of laws and regulations.
Canada needs, at an industry level, to review current policies and laws with respect to taxes, including the excise tax, and work with First Nations on a new federal framework. Canada needs to reduce its packaging and restrictions on cannabis. Canada needs to work with First Nations to ensure resourcing for health, safety and governance work. Canada needs to work with industry in cultivation, distribution, packaging and retail, as well as all those others involved in the industry, to reduce red tape, the overburden of reporting, licensing requirements, advertising and seeking other improvements to the industry.
Finally, Canada needs to look at other jurisdictions, including Washington State, Colorado State and other successful states and governments, on how to implement an affordable yet profitable cannabis licensed industry.
Someone said to me recently that government has nothing to lose, so they don’t really care how the industry rolls out. Whether it’s dominated by black, grey or red markets, thriving and licensed cultivation and retail stores are closing their doors at an alarming rate. “They really don’t care,” is what somebody once said to me. This has resonated with me.
Why would a First Nation go through a licensing regime in cultivation with the federal licence to grow, a licensed producer or a micro-grower or open a provincially licensed retail store, while licensed growers and stores are closing across the country? Why not just assert your rights and tell governments to keep their licenses?
Canada has a chance to improve things starting at the top with the federal Cannabis Act. It felt rushed, and then provincial governments were also quick to rush their own laws and policies. But make no mistake about it, Canada and provincial governments are failing a potentially lucrative industry and an opportunity to advance reconciliation in a concrete way.
Tseshaht, our First Nation, is at a fork in the road. Very soon, customers at the retail level can go to their neighbourhood grower or a black, grey or red market storefront and buy a product at half the price of what our store is able to sell it at. Due to the high costs of our store, we have to have a high markup value just to survive, but we’re on the brink of simply asserting our rights to cannabis as well, at all levels.
The Governments of Canada and B.C. have an opportunity to save the industry and help it thrive with economic reconciliation, but it cannot occur with cannabis if things don’t change immediately. Tseshaht has Aboriginal title and rights, which include those in relation to cannabis. We’re not afraid to exercise those rights, just as we’ve done previously on fisheries.
We thank the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for allowing us to share our story. Let’s hope this leads to change starting at the top with Canada’s Cannabis Act, eventually leading down to provincial and other jurisdictions — amendments and work on policy and legislation.
I’ll leave my comments there for now in order to allow time for questions. Once again, on behalf of Tseshaht, our First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island, we thank the Standing Senate Committee for allowing us to present and we say [Indigenous language spoken]. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you for being here. I am going to ask the same question I asked on Tuesday. Do you think it would be helpful for doctors to be able to prescribe cannabis for healing instead of prescribing drugs? That is to whoever wants to answer.
Ms. Perron: I’m not quite sure I am qualified to respond to that, given that I have no knowledge whatsoever of medical, medicinal or traditional medicinal. I guess that would be a question for the medical professions. I could always look into it for you and get back to you on it. I think that it is important to certainly explore, but I am definitely not the right person to provide you with an answer to that. My apologies.
The Chair: Mr. Watts, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Watts: Similarly, I’m not a health professional. I wouldn’t be able to make that decision.
One thing I will note, something that we have observed in the industry, at least in our situation here on the West Coast of British Columbia, is that the number of elders and seniors that access the provincially licensed store is actually quite surprising, just from our observations about our customer base. I think there is an interest from those elders, not just Tseshaht but other Nuu-chah-nulth or other Indigenous and non-Indigenous, quite frankly, who are interested in the products at a very safe level, and they want to ensure it’s safe.
I’m not one to say whether it’s okay to prescribe or not; I will leave that up to the health professionals. But I will say that I think it is worthwhile to do research on that in terms of the actual use of it by seniors, elders and those with ailments. It has been quite interesting to observe.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Look, I thought the presentations from these two witnesses were very clear and very compelling. It is really of concern to me that the rushed cannabis legislation has left First Nations reeling without resources and without authority.
I see a clear theme from both witnesses, wherein they would like to have the ability to control what happens on their own lands. I heard that there are frustrations dealing with the provincial monopoly in Quebec and that in Tseshaht, Port Alberni, the provincially licensed dispensary and its rules restricting advertising and controlling price have actually driven up the illicit market, contrary to the stated goal of the federal legislation.
I want to confirm — and I would like to ask each witness — are you recommending that we should make strong recommendations in this study that there be a respect for the jurisdiction of First Nations on their own lands for their own peoples and that the act should be amended to respect this inherent right?
The Chair: Would you like to start, Chief Perron?
Ms. Perron: Absolutely. That is exactly what we’ve been discussing at our council table. There is a definite need to recognize that we need to exercise our jurisdiction over our territory and our people. It has been clear that the current situation is not working. Part of that is because we’re not able to exercise jurisdiction effectively.
We often talk about the fact that although there may have been some consultation with First Nations prior to the enactment of the act, either it was inadequate or completely lacking. I wasn’t able to find specifically what groups of First Nations were involved in those consultations, but I can tell you that Kahnawà:ke was not. Kahnawà:ke is in a very particular situation given its location, in close proximity to Montreal. As I mentioned earlier, with the number of vehicles that come through our territory and the number of non-locals who are in and out of our territory, we really need to be able to handle the situation in a way that is best for our community. We live there and we know what our community needs and wants, and that is not provided for anywhere in the act.
As I also mentioned, unfortunately, we have not been able to advance with the province on any discussions. They started back in 2018, before I took over the cannabis files. There is definitely the need for some more direct involvement at the federal level with the First Nations. Leaving it to the provinces — at least with respect to the province we’re in, Quebec — is definitely problematic for us.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Do we have time to ask Chief Watts?
Mr. Watts: Thank you very much for the great question. It is at the heart of the issue here. For Tseshaht, we could share about the lack of consultation and the rushed legislation that went through.
About looking forward, I shared in my comments about embracing the UNDRIP, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the framework that Canada wants to move forward on regarding its implementation and also embracing section 35 regarding our Aboriginal title and rights.
The federal government has made movements towards jurisdiction and transfer of authority to First Nations across the country. I know that this is unique, but I think about B.C. First Nations’ education jurisdiction, for example, where, both provincially and federally, we were able to work with First Nations on a framework for advancing jurisdiction for First Nations. Thinking of that on the East Coast, I know that our brothers and sisters were able to move forward with jurisdiction.
We have a health transfer, the First Nations Health Authority, here in British Columbia. We have assumed the responsibility to take over our health services.
I think that there is a framework and there are ways to move forward in a good way that we could learn from and not recreate the wheel. I think that the Cannabis Act does need to be amended to include that space for jurisdiction of cannabis on First Nations lands and to leave it up to the nations to be self-determining on how they want to move forward. Part of UNDRIP is that it is up to every nation as to what they want to do or not do. Thank you for the question.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Watts.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much to both witnesses for being here. I will start with Chief Perron, if I may. Thank you for your presentation. It was extremely helpful. I’m somewhat familiar with your community.
Can you help me understand the role of the Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Board, what you see as the mandate and what you take on now?
Ms. Perron: The Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Board was created through our Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Law.
The board consists of three members and an operations manager who runs the office. The board’s responsibility is the regulation of the industry. That is, the issuance of licences, suspension, revocation, oversight, inspection — all of that. It is still very young. It is in its infancy. Due to lack of resources and funding, it has been somewhat difficult to implement it fully. However, the board has started issuing licences in terms of cultivation. We have not yet opened dispensary applications for the reasons I stated earlier, but they will be overseeing that as well and they will be responsible, as I said, for an inspection component. That takes it outside of the authority of the Mohawk Council and puts it within the board, but there is still the linkage there in terms of accountability at the end of the day.
Senator Boniface: How does that interact, or does it interact at all, with the Quebec government?
Ms. Perron: Right now, the Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Board is only interacting with Health Canada.
Senator Boniface: It has a direct relationship with them?
Ms. Perron: Yes, and any interaction with the provincial government is done politically at the moment through myself or through our grand chief.
Senator Boniface: Am I correct, then, to assume that on Kahnawà:ke right now there are no dispensaries?
Ms. Perron: There are no dispensaries. I should be careful; there are no licenced dispensaries. I don’t know if there are dispensaries that I am not aware of, however.
Senator Boniface: In part, you are trying to make sure that —
Ms. Perron: Everyone has a licence.
Senator Boniface: And as it moves forward, that you have the ability to control the number of licences and such that would be issued?
Ms. Perron: Yes, and we’ve limited it in the law to a maximum of three at the moment in order to be able to have some research and study on the impacts of just three.
Senator Boniface: You make reference to workload increases for your peacekeepers. Being impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs, alcohol or more than one drug, as I’m sure your officers tell you, is a very difficult prosecution and investigation.
Do you have any stats that you could share with us in terms of what has been the increase in the community since the act came in?
Ms. Perron: I do not have any statistics but I can certainly ask our chief peacekeeper. I’m pretty sure that he keeps statistics on just about everything. I do know that they lack English training, which is problematic for our peacekeepers, and, as I mentioned earlier, equipment. I understand there are some tests that you can use. I do not know how reliable there are, but there are tests, and I don’t think that they’re fully equipped with those tests.
The Chair: Mr. Watts, you would like to add anything?
Mr. Watts: Could you repeat which question you would like me to answer? Sorry.
Senator Boniface: That is great. Actually, I was going to shift the question.
You made reference to the black, grey and red market. For the purpose of anyone who is watching, could you outline how you identify each of those?
Mr. Watts: Yes. I think that the black and grey markets are more those that are provincially and federally unlicensed on the retail side. For the red market, I’m referring to First Nations asserting their title and rights to cultivation and growing their own cannabis and distribution through their own title and rights, through storefronts or other forms, be it online or whatever it may be. There are various methods to those distributions throughout the province, but that is my best way to describe black, grey and red.
Senator Boniface: You make reference to Colorado and Washington. Could you point us to where they might have direct engagement with Indigenous communities there that have been successful?
Mr. Watts: Yes, not so much with respect to relationships with Indigenous peoples but just in general, to be honest, in terms of their markets. They’ve done so well in terms of bringing in a large tax base but not over-regulating the markets. I keep using packaging as an example. You can go in here and buy a product that’s licenced federally, or you can go into a provincially licenced store, and there are three to four layers of packaging to get down to the product. But you can go down to Washington State and there may be just one package and you open it up. That is what I mean. That is just one example. I think we can learn other industry traits from other places that have regulated cannabis. It is not specific to Indigenous, but more, overall, the cannabis industry itself and not overregulating it but finding a good balance, right?
That is why I referenced Colorado and Washington. As many know, it has been successful in terms of what they have been able to produce from a licensed process that has also produced a lot of revenue for those states.
Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses. Both of you have described very different situations in your communities, in large part because of the way the provincial jurisdictions have dealt with this issue. I would be interested in how you have built or perceive building in a business model that also includes social, economic and health well-being in your community, using the cannabis industry as a part of that in terms of production but also building in how you deal with healing and addiction issues and other areas of concern.
The second question is: In terms of record expungement in some of those areas, is there any work being done in the community to assist community members who might have past records that need to be expunged? If you could start, Chief Perron, and then Chief Councillor Watts.
Ms. Perron: Thank you for your question. In terms of the industry in Kahnawà:ke and covering all of those aspects that you mentioned, our Cannabis Control Law provides for the Cannabis Control Board, which would be the authority for the oversight. It also provides for the health and safety committee, which is responsible for oversight as well in terms of impacts that the legislation and the industry are having on health and safety in our community. It is made up of a number of different organizational reps from public safety, social services and the hospital. They are supposed to make recommendations to the board for any changes that would need to be made to the regulations or even to the legislation, as well as, of course, bringing forward any recommendations they have for the different organizations. Take, for example, the example I gave with the youth. If they start to see issues with that, then, of course, they would bring it to the social services organization in our community.
We have also built into our law what is called a mandatory community contribution, which requires every industry — every licensed business — whether it be cultivation, processing or dispensaries, to pay a certain amount in mandatory community contributions. It is equivalent to, I believe, 0.5% for the first year all the way up to 2.5%, topping out after, I think, five years. So we factor in allowing for growth — start-up and then growth.
It is hoped that with all of those pieces in there, we’re able to balance the economic benefits from it — the revenue generation for the community — but at the same time, ensure the health and safety is still there, and also, if there is any underfunding, we can fund with that.
I think that was your first question, right? I will have to ask you to repeat the second question; I’m sorry.
Senator Pate: There has also been provision for record expungement, for those who had cannabis records.
Ms. Perron: I was a criminal lawyer in my past life, so yes, I’m well aware of the number of individuals who have criminal records for simple possession. I’m not aware of any efforts that have been undertaken in the community through any organization or independent body to assist with that. That is a very good question. I’m actually on the justice portfolio as well in Kahnawà:ke for the council. I will look into that, because I think that is something that is important, particularly for those who have records for simple possession.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Mr. Watts: Thank you. For Tseshaht, from a health and safety perspective, we’re really proud here in British Columbia. The First Nations Health Authority has done a really good job at educating our people about everything, not just cannabis, in terms of the work they have been able to do. I think we rely heavily on them. Obviously, there are always going to be more resources required in terms of educating not just our citizens but all British Columbians and everyone in our territory with respect to cannabis.
However, about the investment opportunities, I think it is hard to ask a struggling company to invest in education when they are not producing the profits needed because of the various regulations, the high cost of the product and the domination by other markets. But it is interesting that you ask, because when we had this discussion as a community, our community was actually the one who decided to enter this industry. We had engagements and shared health information, and there was always an underlying concern about the actual impacts, socially or health-wise, in our community. But I think that I can comfortably say that the store has not negatively impacted that. As I shared previously, I actually think part of our large client base is senior citizens or elders from various First Nations. I think that is partly it. So in terms of increased activity, social issues or health concerns, I do not think that has ever been raised because it has never really been a concern in our community.
About your second question around the records, it is not something that our nation has necessarily been involved in. I will say that from a regulation standpoint, provincially here in British Columbia, the amount of work you have to go through to actually obtain a licence to have a retail store is pretty extensive. It’s actually more work than it is to open up a liquor store in the province. That tells me there is something wrong with the regulations. The background checks that people have to go through both on the federal side, in terms of growing or cultivation, and then on the provincial side, in terms of retail, are very extensive already.
I think we need to do an actual review both federally and provincially around those backgrounds. But in terms of people’s personal records, that is not something that we’ve ever really come across. However, I’m sure there is work that needs to be done in that area. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our two witnesses here this evening. I’m hearing that jurisdiction is a really key issue for both of you, and we have heard it repeatedly here from some of our colleagues. We passed the UNDRIP, last year, right? That was three years after the Cannabis Act was passed. The Cannabis Act was passed with all of these good intentions, but UNDRIP was not yet in place. UNDRIP is in place now. The act is in place. It is in the process of being implemented. I would be curious to hear from both of you how and if you think that the UNDRIP legislation — the very existence of that act now — will be of assistance to you in these matters that you are raising related to cannabis in your communities. Is that going to be helpful? If so, how?
It would be interesting and important for us because, of course, we studied both of these acts at this committee, and we are hearing things that make us think about those connections. So I would like to hear what you have to say. Chief Perron, if you could start.
Ms. Perron: Yes, sure. Thank you.
That is a very difficult question, considering — and I am going to be very careful in how I say this — the fact that Kahnawà:ke is in the province of Quebec. UNDRIP does not have the same significance as it does in the rest of Turtle Island — the rest of Canada. We are having some difficulty, I feel, with Quebec’s full recognition of UNDRIP and desire to implement it. As I say, I want to be very careful how I say this, but I’m not quite sure it would go as far in the province of Quebec as it might across Canada. For the moment, I would probably leave it at that so as not to —
Senator Coyle: That will be a real issue, then, for this legislative review to really look at the particularities for those communities like Kahnawà:ke that are within the geographic area of the province of Quebec.
Ms. Perron: Yes. We definitely have different challenges, given the status of Quebec in terms of the rest of the provinces.
Senator Coyle: So that is one of the distinctions that we should be making sure is looked at.
Ms. Perron: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Coyle: Very helpful. Chief Councillor Wahmeesh, would you like to comment on this?
Mr. Watts: Yes. Definitely, I would. In the province here, we also have provincial legislation in terms of enacting UNDRIP and how they implement it, but really the proof’s in the pudding, for lack of a better term. The average citizen hasn’t really seen the success of UNDRIP. I do see the long-term vision and the opportunity it has both federally and provincially, but those words need to be put into action.
The big piece is the alignment with laws that need to follow UNDRIP. That’s the big piece. It’s not just free, prior and informed consent. There are a lot of other portions of UNDRIP that need to be fully implemented. I do have hope, but that’s a long-term goal, in my opinion. UNDRIP is going to take some work. I think you already have the authority under section 35 to enter into these types of agreements in terms of jurisdiction federally. As I shared before, it already happened in education here in B.C. and in other parts of the country. I do still believe that there’s an opportunity to enter into it.
Here, in British Columbia, we also have the provincial Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. There is section 119 that allows the province to enter into agreements with First Nations or Indigenous nations, but it is still not being given the weight that it needs to actually have full jurisdiction and authority. Again, I think that needs to happen directly with the act.
So, yes, I am a supporter of UNDRIP and the federal legislation, but to see that fully implemented will take some time. If we’re looking for some shorter mid-term goals to be achieved, we need to look at other opportunities and some type of legislation or amending the current Cannabis Act to make that a reality. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I just want to make sure. We’ve heard all of your testimony, but this is a chance for each of you to just say, “Okay, this legislative review of the Cannabis Act is coming.” What are the absolute priority areas that should be dealt with in this legislative review from each of your perspectives? Can you just name them?
Ms. Perron: For us, for the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, the absolute priority is the carve-out in the legislative review to provide that First Nations do not need to go through the province, do not need an agreement with the province. I think we’ve proven that we’re able. Not everyone may be able. It’s not the solution for every First Nation across Canada. Some don’t have the resources, the capacity, the finances, the location — whatever it may be. But in our case, and for some other First Nations, we want the ability to legislate and regulate for ourselves, within our own territorial boundaries and for our own people. That needs to be done with a carve-out directly in the Cannabis Act itself, and that’s not there.
We believe that, with that — I’m not saying it’s going to be the magical solution to everything, but it’s the key. At least the key will turn in the lock the direction that it needs to go.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. Chief Councillor?
Mr. Watts: Thank you. Similarly for the Tseshaht First Nation, jurisdiction and authority are at the heart of the issue — if the act can make sure that space is provided in amendments to the Act.
Similar to the previous comments of my dear friend there, each nation is different. What happens here in British Columbia is not the same in Ontario, and it’s not the same in Saskatchewan. Those are unique relationships. Not all nations are interested in cultivation. Not all nations are interested in retail, but it has to start with that opportunity. If it’s going to be a true government-to-government relationship between us and the Crown, I agree it needs to start with this Cannabis Act. That jurisdiction needs to be carved out somewhere in the Act, but it must also provide that space for unique agreements. Not every agreement needs to look the same because every nation has their own desires and priorities. As I have said, if you’re ever going to embrace UNDRIP, you need to respect that each nation is different; we’re not all the same. I agree jurisdiction and authority need to be the top amendments for Indigenous nations and those relationships with the Crown and the Cannabis Act. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses today. Chief Perron, my questions are, I think, more for you. In your testimony, you touched on several key concerns that I have had when we were looking at the Cannabis Act. One of them was regarding edibles. They were going to become legal within a year after the passage of the act, and we had some questions about that. You mentioned how that’s become a growing concern, especially for youth. I wanted to hear a bit more about that.
Then you also talked about cannabis-impaired driving. And I remember being at the table, trying to understand the devices that are being used, but you had to have special training. There was a lack of the devices to begin with. Even with the accuracy, there were some questions around that.
You said the priority for you is the right to legislate and regulate, but you touched on enforcement. I’m wondering, without that, I feel with the laws and whatever you do, there will still be major issues. Would you talk a bit about the enforcement issue and maybe enlighten us more on the concerns about edibles and impaired driving? Thank you.
Ms. Perron: In terms of edibles, edibles are actually legal in terms of the federal legislation. It’s up to each province to determine whether or not the edibles will be available within their province.
I don’t want to venture to say it’s the edibles so much that are the problem. In Quebec, the problem is that there are no legally available edibles, meaning edibles that are made through a facility that’s licensed and inspected and has, at least, those safeguards in place. I’m not sitting here promoting the use of edibles by anyone, but if the product is going to be there and legal and available, it should be a safe product. Right now, we’re seeing that we don’t have that safe product in that province on account of the fact that it’s not accepted. It’s not an acceptable product.
That, I think, is contributing to a lot of what we’re seeing with the youth in our community and the access to those unsafe edibles.
Now, obviously, kids will be kids, and they’ll probably get their hands even on safe legal edibles if they were available. Once again, not promoting it, but, at the very least, it’s not synthetic cannabis that is included in it. This is the health issue. It’s like the lesser of two evils. What do you do with that?
In terms of the policing, the enforcement is very difficult for our peacekeepers, for all of the reasons that I stated. One of them definitely goes more specifically to the impaired driving because, as you mentioned, it’s very difficult to determine if somebody is impaired by alcohol or by a drug.
A lot of training has been taking place for that, but there is a lack of English training. That’s a constant issue that we have in our community with our police force: training availability in English. They’re trained, to begin with, I believe, in Saskatchewan because of the lack of English courses within the province.
It’s not only the training. All of the communication around cannabis, around the impacts and Public Safety Canada — there’s a lack of communication there as well because, throughout the rest of the country, it’s the RCMP, and in Quebec, it’s the SQ, La Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police. In our community, we have a legitimate, recognized police force, but there are no lines of communication coming directly from Public Safety there. Usually it’s passing through RCMP or SQ in our province.
Even that is creating some problems with the enforceability. I do think we need to open up the lines of communication more and recognize that our police force is the legitimate police force for our territory, and the force needs that additional funding. It’s all about funding and resources. The enforcement cannot be carried out appropriately by the peacekeepers without those additional funding and resources. As I mentioned, they are down; they would need about 14 more police officers to be able to handle it. It’s not just on account of cannabis but to handle all of the additional tasks that are being presented to them with cannabis and other things.
This is something for our chief peacekeeper. He’s aware of it. I believe he’s doing and going to continue doing what he needs to do to try to resolve that. We do have, of course, the chief at the Mohawk Council who is responsible for public safety. We have a chief for that. It’s been mentioned there as well. We’re really trying to get some assistance in that area.
Senator Martin: Those conversations will be very important in order to have the enforcement, to police what is happening in your community.
Ms. Perron: Yes, and I mentioned that, through the Cannabis Control Law, there are inspectors. There would be a semi-enforcement aspect to the Cannabis Control Law once it’s fully implemented. That’s a conversation we’ve been having with our peacekeepers in terms of how they enforce our act and also the criminal legislation — the rules of general application — that still apply.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for meeting with us today.
For our next panel, we wish to welcome from the First Nations Tax Commission, Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner; and from the Maiwpukek First Nation, David Joe, Operational Manager.
Each witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. 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 also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the five-minute period for questions and answers.
In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I invite them to send a written response to the clerk before Friday, November 4, 2022.
I now invite Mr. Jules to give his remarks.
Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission: Honourable senators, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness before this committee as part of your examination of the impacts of cannabis legislation in Canada.
In 2018, I appeared before this committee two times to propose amendments to the cannabis act to accommodate First Nations’ fiscal and regulatory cannabis jurisdiction. To paraphrase what I said four years ago: The federal government’s decision to deprive First Nations of their cannabis tax jurisdiction will cause substantial revenue losses for all governments. It will compromise our ability to put into place a regulatory system that protects children. It will compromise product and health standards, and those outcomes are in nobody’s interest.
Unfortunately, this was the only parliamentary committee studying the original cannabis act that heeded this warning and supported our work and proposed amendments. In June 2018, thanks to the work and advocacy of this committee, you secured a commitment from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indigenous Services to work with the First Nations Tax Commission and interested First Nations on cannabis revenue-sharing and tax regulatory jurisdiction arrangements.
We have accomplished some changes since then, but much work remains to implement the commitment of our cannabis jurisdiction that we won with your support in 2018. Here is a summary of our work since then:
First, I can report that the First Nations Tax Commission has been in discussions with officials from the Department of Finance Canada since 2018 about cannabis tax jurisdiction. We have presented proposals to them to accommodate First Nations federal sales tax jurisdiction over cannabis sold on our lands. We have presented proposals to accommodate First Nations excise tax jurisdiction for cannabis produced, distributed and sold on our lands.
I am pleased to report that, in 2021, our proposal for federal sales tax jurisdiction was accepted. The Department of Finance Canada is moving forward on creating the fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco — or FACT — sales tax option for interested First Nations. This was mentioned in both Budget 2021 and Budget 2022.
The First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC, is working closely with Finance Canada officials so that interested First Nations have the institutional and capacity support to implement this jurisdiction efficiently when they choose to do so. We need the FACT sales tax power to be part of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, or FNFMA, so that First Nations can maximize its benefits with their communities while ensuring the highest standards of transparency and accountability to their members.
With your continued advocacy, we hope that the necessary legislative amendments to accommodate the cannabis sales tax jurisdictional space are available next year in the FNFMA.
Second, the FNTC worked with proponent First Nations and First Nations organizations in 2018 and 2019 to develop a seven-part proposal to implement First Nations cannabis fiscal and regulatory jurisdiction. Those seven parts consist of the following: One, optional for First Nations; two, First Nations cannabis regulatory jurisdiction; three, First Nations cannabis fiscal jurisdiction; four, First Nations cannabis distribution warehouses; five, a First Nations cannabis stamp; six, institutional support for First Nations cannabis jurisdiction; and seven, First Nations licence quotas.
In December 2019, that entire seven-part proposal and the necessary legislation and amendments to implement it were supported by an Assembly of First Nations resolution. I will soon be sending you more information about that comprehensive First Nations cannabis jurisdiction proposal and the legislative changes to accommodate it.
As this committee knows, economic and jurisdictional reconciliation will only occur with First Nations-led optional legislative proposals that accommodate our rights and titles within the federation.
I am here today to ask this committee to continue to support our work, our jurisdiction and our legislative proposals. Four years ago, you stood with us, and I believe we have both been vindicated. We are on the right side of history.
Had the government listened to this committee four years ago, there would have been higher cannabis public revenues, lower youth cannabis consumption and higher cannabis public health standards.
It is good to be working together again to accomplish what my father always said: Right is might.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules. I now invite David Joe to give his remarks.
David Joe, Operational Manager, Maiwpukek First Nations: My name is David Joe, and I’m the farthest east as you can get out in the middle of the North Atlantic.
Our organization, the Maiwpukek First Nations, started the process when the federal government announced that they were going to legalize the cannabis industry. It trickled down to the provinces and — [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: We’ll now begin the question and answer session. I would invite Senator Coyle to ask the first question, followed by Senator Patterson.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Jules and Mr. Joe, for being with us.
I have two questions that I would like to ask you, Mr. Jules, and they come from Senator Dan Christmas: Could you provide us at this time with a little more detail about your tax commission’s seven-part proposal for cannabis jurisdiction? You had referenced it in your opening remarks. You listed the seven parts, but we don’t have any real detail on any of that. If you are at liberty to give us a little more detail at this time, we would love to hear about it.
Mr. Jules: Thank you very much for that question.
The first part, one, is optionality. The proposal is for a fiscal regulatory system that would be optional for First Nations, meaning that they would make the choice themselves.
Two, the regulatory jurisdiction: The Cannabis Act should be amended to support a First-Nations-specific cannabis regulatory framework that supports First Nations’ objectives.
Three, fiscal jurisdiction: The FACT tax is a good start, but we need to receive the excise taxes, like the provincial governments, through an agreed-upon formula. Those First Nations that implement the FACT sales tax should get excise tax revenues at the same time. This and other cannabis fiscal jurisdictions should be available in the FNFMA and supported by the FNTC. Again, the reason we’re proposing that is it would allow First Nations to leverage those revenues through the First Nations Finance Authority to go into the international bond market and borrow money as well as regular banks.
Four, First Nations cannabis distribution warehouses: Participating First Nations could supply cannabis products to a cannabis distribution warehouse system that is uniquely First Nations and could coordinate with provincial distribution systems.
Five, First Nations cannabis stamp: Much like the provincial stamps used for cannabis products, there should be a distinct First Nations cannabis stamp. More than any other element of our proposal, this would be a demonstration of reconciliation and finally accommodating our governments within the federation.
Just to expand on that briefly, it would allow First Nations to have the same standing — having a stamp like the provincial and territorial governments — which I think goes right to the heart of developing what I call “economic reconciliation.”
Six, First Nations institutional support: First Nations will need institutional support for the cannabis fiscal, regulatory, quality control and revenue-tracking systems. The FNTC could support First Nations cannabis fiscal jurisdiction, but there would need to be legislation to create a First Nations institutional framework for cannabis regulatory jurisdiction. There should be a stand-alone regulatory body to deal with the accommodation of First Nations’ jurisdiction.
Seven, First Nations licence quotas, federal and provincial: This committee supported the First Nations’ proposal that 20% of cannabis production should be reserved for First Nations producers. Your recommendation should be implemented.
That is, in summary, what I proposed, and I will give more detailed responses.
As I mentioned in my presentation, the Assembly of First Nations passed specific resolutions to accommodate these proposals, and there should be work, ultimately, to accommodate this through your studies and your good work.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules.
Senator Patterson: Chief Commissioner Jules, it’s great to see you again. I must say I’m uplifted by your positive report about progress since we worked together in 2018.
I have two angles I’d like to pursue with you. First of all, on the fuel, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis sales tax proposal that’s been accepted by Finance Canada, no doubt due to your hard work with them, I understand that this will require legislative amendments. Can you tell us where those amendments are and how we can support their introduction into Parliament?
Mr. Jules: Well, we’re in discussions with the Department of Finance as we speak. We’re hoping to see the introduction of the legislative amendments — I’m hoping this fall — and passed, of course, as soon as possible. But any support from your committee, Senator Patterson, would be helpful for the speedy passage of those amendments.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Jules: Further, what we’re also proposing is for the excise tax to be an important component of the FACT tax, so that First Nations would be able to get the equivalent of what the provincial governments are collecting through the sharing of the excise tax formula with provincial governments. Right now, we’re excluded from those.
Senator Patterson: Very good. Those immediate amendments would include the excise tax. I’m pleased to hear that.
With respect to the second part of the seven-part proposal, which would be to give regulatory and fiscal jurisdiction, I am pleased to see that it has been well developed through your good offices. I want to let you know that the committee has received a report from Health Canada summarizing its engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people on the Cannabis Act and its impacts, dated September 22, 2022.
In relation to jurisdiction, the report says that right now there is no ability for First Nations, Inuit and Métis to take control under the Cannabis Act, but the report states:
Rather, through other established legislation and authorities such as the Indian Act, the First Nations Land Management Act, modern treaties and self-government agreements, or municipal authorities, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis can create additional rules or requirements for cannabis-related activities (for example, zoning bylaws) in their communities.
The paragraph does not even mention the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.
Do I understand that you’re proposing amendments to the Cannabis Act that would give authority under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act rather than a piecemeal approach of dealing with the Indian Act or the First Nations Land Management Act? Give us the simple legislative formula that you have in mind for implementing your seven-point proposal, please.
Mr. Jules: At this stage of the game, so to speak, you would need to coordinate all of the bodies to have enforcement mechanisms. The reason that the Lands Advisory Board would continue to be involved is for the very reason that is stated: zoning regulations. Through zoning, you would be able to control where dispensaries would be located. Right now, a lot of communities are confronted with the fact that individuals are having dispensaries close to playgrounds, to elders’ facilities and so on. It’s through zoning mechanisms that you would be able to control that.
We’re proposing the FNFMA be included as part of the amendment because of the expertise that we’ve created specifically dealing with the fiscal aspects and allowing First Nations to use the tax revenues. One of the questions asked by a senator earlier was, “What kind of facilities would you be able to use?” Well, we’re creating a First Nations infrastructure institute. Through that body, we would be able to house health care facilities, care facilities and whatnot, through pooled resourcing and pooled approaches to solving those issues.
I envision a national body to help facilitate it, but a body that would have to include the Lands Advisory Board, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and, because a lot of communities by and large are still under the Indian Act, you would require some auxiliary amendments to the Indian Act to deal with some aspects of it.
It also raises some interesting questions. There will be a national conference hosted by the Lands Advisory Board surrounding enforcement issues. This is a huge issue for First Nations. You could see it with the killing that happened in one of the communities in Saskatchewan and the complete lack of ability of First Nations to be able to enforce their own laws, whether they be traditional or criminal activities, within their communities. The police are reluctant to come in and enforce First Nations laws for whatever reasons and, of course, the RCMP are ultimately answerable to the Minister of Justice, David Lametti. This has to be looked at.
In the longer term, what is the court of competent jurisdiction when you are dealing with these questions of enforcement? Is it the provincial courts? Is it the Federal Court? When you are dealing with the Federal Court, by and large they have neither the expertise nor the capacity to be able to deal with the myriad of laws that have to be dealt with. When you are talking about enforcement, you are going beyond just the Cannabis Act; you are looking at a whole range of enforcement issues, of laws and standardization of First Nations.
Senator Patterson: This is a very exciting proposal, chief commissioner.
Our study is designed, hopefully, to help inform the federal legislative review. I would ask you to give us as much detail as you can about what I now understand would be a very comprehensive and holistic approach to this issue of jurisdiction that has been a very important concern of the Indigenous authorities that we have heard from today. We would be grateful to have your vision, and I, for one, can imagine the committee giving it strong credence and support. Thank you.
Mr. Jules: Thank you, senator. To add, I’m not surprised at all by Health Canada excluding us from their vision of where we could be headed in the future. They excluded First Nations in the first round of legislative amendments and our jurisdiction. We will put together a comprehensive report for the Senate to look at.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Welcome, chief commissioner. I am quite interested in your proposal. I think Senator Patterson took some of my questions.
I want to clarify a couple of things so that I have a good understanding. On the second part of your seven-part proposal, the regulatory piece, would that essentially move the province out of jurisdiction completely? Would that be your proposal?
Mr. Jules: Exactly. There has to be a national regulatory body, much like the First Nations Tax Commission, that looks at and can accommodate the myriad of different approaches that First Nations would like to move toward to achieve their final ends. That cannot be accomplished under the existing legislative framework. There would have to be a very specific legislative framework for First Nations to fill out themselves. You would need a national body to help to standardize that to make it easier for First Nations to develop the laws.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much. In terms of the institutional support, are you thinking of it in the context of addiction-related issues or aspects of impacts on communities of cannabis: studies, research, things like that? Have you thought of it in that context?
Mr. Jules: Well, absolutely. When you start dealing with this very important area of jurisdiction, you have to be able to look at all aspects. Right now, a lot of that is being done, and will be done, through the department of health. I am proposing that First Nations should be able to have the institutional basis and the wherewithal to be able to have those kinds of studies themselves.
We work closely with the British Columbia First Nations Health Authority. We are looking at building a number of buildings through the First Nations Infrastructure Institute. That could be accomplished right across the country.
There is no reason why we shouldn’t free our imaginations to allow First Nations to have the same freedom of thought that the provincial and federal governments now enjoy.
Senator Boniface: I think you covered it briefly in your comments, but I would expect you to also look at how your community policing needs can be served through some of this, given that you are trying to build capacity, both economic and also from a public safety perspective.
Mr. Jules: Absolutely. Again, this corresponds with the national meeting that will take place that deals with enforcement. Obviously, when you have those kinds of discussions, you are going to have to talk about policing. That is going to take a myriad of different approaches, because you have RCMP agreements in some communities, and you have tribal police in others. You have to be able to look at that in very fine detail and make recommendations, because you are not only dealing with cannabis issues; you are having to deal with a whole myriad of other issues.
Senator Boniface: That is great. Thank you very much. I wish you well in this.
Mr. Jules: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Jules, I would just like you to make a comment. It seems to me that you have, over the course of the last three years or so, negotiated some movement or a shift in the Department of Finance. What are your thoughts on what precipitated that shift? Is there anything that you could elaborate upon?
You have indicated that other government departments are not necessarily moving in the same direction or at the same speed as the Department of Finance. Are you confident that the Department of Finance will continue with the more cooperative approach?
I also have an observation. It seems to me that you are promoting a model of First Nations government that would be a Canada-wide framework for First Nations government. I am hopeful that you get a positive response from the federal government.
I will just leave those two or three observations. I am really interested in how you see this moving forward in the future and if you can continue to get the kind of cooperation needed to have First Nations jurisdiction recognized by the federal government in a timely way. Three years is a long time to negotiate, in some ways. I hope that what you are saying is that maybe something this committee could do is accelerate that movement or the implementation of First Nations governance on these issues.
Mr. Jules: Senator, we would not have made the progress with the Department of Finance Canada that we did without your solid support, initially. It is because of that support that we were able to go to the Department of Finance to say that we had the Senate Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples in our corner.
It was based on a jurisdictional model. Taksis — and I spell taxes T-A-K-S-I-S. To elaborate upon that, that is our Chinook spelling — our traditional trade language spelling — in the Pacific Northwest. We define it is over four different points: One, we look after each other; two, we help each other; three, we’re not stingy with each other; and four, we’re not jealous of each other.
When you combine all of those aspects of that jurisdiction, it means that when we take on these responsibilities, we do it with the kind of care and consideration that will be reflected in each of the individual communities. The jurisdiction would not rest with the national body; the jurisdiction would always rest with the individual community, but the national body could come up with different scenarios that could be used in an individual community.
One of the things I have learned through my experience as chair of the First Nations Tax Commission is that we have to look at each of the individual provincial governments. We can come up with a model based on their jurisdictional model, but we tailor it to the individual community’s own needs. That has to be paramount when you begin to develop UNDRIP.
Through our own regulatory basis, we can demonstrate, not only to ourselves but to the rest of the country, that we can develop national institutions with integrity, transparency and accountability and be able to pool our resources through a government fund to ultimately be in a position where we can fund scientific studies and do our own analysis regarding cannabis products.
Senator Arnot: I think you are on the right track. I’m glad to see you are working on that and making good progress with the Department of Finance Canada. Hopefully, Health and Justice will follow along. Otherwise, that is antithetical to reconciliation.
Seeing a First Nations governance model that could be a framework for all of Canada is quite exciting, really. Thank you for advising me. I’m new to the committee, so I do not know all of the background issues, but I’m really impressed with what I’m hearing this evening.
Mr. Jules: I really appreciate your sentiments. We need your support. You are not the house of sober second thought for any reason other than to make sure that government is on the right track. As we said, during the first round of discussions, they were completely off-base by excluding First Nations governments. Now, we will have to catch up after three years.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Chief Commissioner Jules, I again have a question from Senator Dan Christmas. I think that you said it was your father who said that right is might. Would you elaborate on your earlier prediction that the failure to implement First Nations cannabis jurisdiction will contribute to poor policy outcomes for cannabis legalization? Could you elaborate on that statement of yours?
Mr. Jules: It is very clear what has happened, just through the testimony I have heard this evening. You have children eating edibles that are contaminated. I have heard various stories in my travels right across the country over the last three years of fentanyl being put into various products, because there is no oversight.
Those kinds of situations happen because the federal government excluded First Nations governments to begin with.
It is clear that First Nations governments want to be a part of the industry. We have entrepreneurs who want to be a part of the “green industry,” from seed to sale. The only way to ultimately accommodate that is through the development of institutions that help facilitate it.
One of the things we did create — and it is widely used now — is encouraging First Nations communities to use the First Nations Gazette so that they could make proclamations regarding their cannabis laws. That has been one of the most successful areas we have been involved in. We have been encouraging First Nations to codify their laws and to put them into the First Nations Gazette to be proclaimed. It has been very successful.
When you think about the area around health, it is clear that First Nations need adequate resources to deal with addiction issues. One of the most important areas — and you can see it during this era of COVID — is that a lot of the deaths are not contributed, of course, to cannabis. They are more related to fentanyl overdoses in our communities. So you need resources to be able to deal with that first-hand.
It is only at the local level that you can begin to address it, but you need national programs to be able to facilitate that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, again, for your presentations.
Almost everything else that I was interested in had already been asked, but regarding your last intervention, could you comment on the next stage that you see?
So many First Nations and Indigenous leaders that I’ve had the privilege of speaking to are really keen to see the development of Indigenous law reform, the roll-out of Indigenous laws, in particular, when we are talking about the mass incarceration of Indigenous people.
I’m just curious if there is anything that you would like to add in terms of developments there. I know that is a huge package, and it’s intersected with the cannabis, given that we are talking about getting rid of some of the mandatory minimum penalties but not all of them. I am just wondering if you wanted to comment on that.
Mr. Jules: Well, it’s a subject area that I have had to grapple with over many years now. I had a working relationship with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court. When you start to look at that kind of a court system, you need to have legislative amendments. It just got beyond our ability to be able to dedicate the kinds of resources that are required to do that.
When you start looking at areas like the implementation of UNDRIP and finding the proper role of First Nations within the family known as Canada, you have to start systematically going through all of those aspects. When you start dealing with enforcement, some of it is a court issue, some of it is a policing issue and some of it is having the regulatory regimes at the local level to be able to address those. Then, when you start dealing with those issues — The point that you made about incarceration, it’s a sin to see so many First Nations within the prison system, whether they be male or female, youth or not.
To me, that goes to the heart of economic reconciliation. Without having the economic basis to create our own economies and to develop programs on our own, I’m of the view that programs beget more programs. In the long term, they don’t actually solve a lot of the issues that they are set up to solve. If First Nations have the economic wherewithal, where we can share in the bounty of the land — Just to give you an idea of some of the aspects I am proposing: For every dollar that is collected on reserves, the federal and provincial governments collect seven; that imbalance has to be fixed.
Then, when you look at the resources, we are still a resource-based economy. In order to facilitate that, what I am proposing is a First Nations resource charge so that First Nations would get a share or a percentage of all of the resources that are exploited within our traditional and treaty lands. That would go a long way toward settling a lot of the outstanding land claims issues right across the country. It could be a formula-based approach that would benefit not only the provincial governments but also the federal government and empower First Nations to begin to deal with issues such as environmental concerns and issues surrounding incarceration so that we can start to deal with these matters on our own.
One of the things that is a complete irony, as far as I’m concerned, is that the only private-public partnership in the country is on the Osoyoos reserve, and it’s the building of a provincial jail.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules and Senator Pate. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for meeting with us today.
We will now suspend the meeting briefly to allow us to proceed to the in camera portion of our meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)