THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:46 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: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I would like to welcome the senators participating in this meeting. We have Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Boniface from Ontario, Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia, Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick, Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Martin from British Columbia.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask witnesses joining remotely to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized. Should any technical challenges arise, please let me or the clerk know as soon as possible. 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.
As part of our study into the federal implementation of the Cannabis Act as it relates to Indigenous peoples, today we will be hearing from several departmental officials. The meeting will be divided into three panels.
I would now like to introduce the first panel of witnesses. From Indigenous Services Canada, we welcome Dr. Evan Adams, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Public Health, Director General’s Office of Population and Public Health, First Nation and Inuit Health Branch; from Finance Canada, we are joined by Jack Glick, Senior Policy Advisor, Excise Policy, Tax Policy Branch; and Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Taxation Policy, Tax Policy Branch.
Officials from each department will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Since we have several witnesses and a limited amount of time, I ask everyone to keep their interventions as precise and brief as possible.
To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will indicate when witnesses or senators have one minute left on their allocated time. In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I ask them to send a written response to the clerk before Friday, November 4, 2022.
I will now invite Dr. Adams to give his remarks.
Dr. Evan Adams, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Public Health, Director General’s Office of Population and Public Health, First Nation and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada:
Mr. Chair and honourable senators, good evening and thank you for inviting me to be here today.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered today is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
My remarks today are rooted in my experiences. I am here as both the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Public Health for Indigenous Services Canada and also as a First Nations physician from Tla’amin First Nation, about 150 km from the city of Vancouver.
Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, works collaboratively with partners to improve access to high-quality health-related services for First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Our vision is to support Indigenous peoples to independently deliver health-related services and address the socio-economic conditions in their communities.
ISC is guided by two key documents that were developed by Indigenous partners, namely, the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework and the National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy. These two documents outline a holistic approach to mental health and wellness that is grounded in culture and Indigenous-specific determinants of health.
Health Canada officials engaged effectively with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and organizations to share information about the legislative review and to gather feedback on how First Nations should be engaged around cannabis issues. For First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, organizations and individuals, discussions about cannabis legalization from a health perspective are critically linked to broader issues such as self-determination, reconciliation and economic and community development.
Successful implementation of the government’s approach to the legalization of cannabis requires a commitment to work in an ongoing partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments and communities.
As far as data, there are gaps in the health data available regarding cannabis use by First Nations, Inuit and Métis in the period after cannabis legalization. It’s important to acknowledge the gaps in health data that mask inequalities and reduce the potential to develop effective policies that address existing socio-economic and health inequities. Essentially, we’re blind thanks to the lack of data.
However, the First Nations Regional Health Survey, or RHS, led by the First Nations Information Governance Centre, provides critical information about trends in cannabis use and the associated impacts of cannabis use in the period prior to the coming into force of the Cannabis Act — trends that can be broken down by age and can give us a sense of utilization and of risk.
The RHS found cannabis to be one of the most frequently reported non-prescription substances used among First Nations adults aged 18 years or older. About 30% of First Nations adults indicated past-year use of cannabis and 12% of First Nations adults indicated daily or almost daily use.
It is also important to recognize that there are significant disparities and systemic overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. Academic studies have shown that Indigenous people are largely found to be overrepresented among those arrested for cannabis possession.
Moving forward, the research agenda on cannabis and mental health within Indigenous communities must be community-led and driven with supportive partnerships from research stakeholders.
Regarding public education and awareness, questions around self-determination — for example, law-making abilities on reserve — cannabis-related economic opportunities and licensing, et cetera, are not in the scope of my department as those are issues with only marginal effects on health.
A tailored, culturally sensitive, linguistically appropriate and knowledge-translation-based approach to cannabis education is necessary to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples. Such an approach will allow Indigenous communities to shift from a fear-based response to a strength-based, harm reduction approach to the impacts of cannabis.
ISC is supporting Indigenous organizations and communities to develop and deliver substance use resources that aim to prevent and treat substance misuse in First Nations and Inuit communities such as the Soar Above Stigma and We Matter campaigns and the numerous training programs developed by Thunderbird Partnership Foundation.
As previously reported to this committee, the government also took steps to ensure that critical information about the legalization and regulation of cannabis and the health effects of cannabis were translated into Indigenous languages. I’ve listed some of those languages here, including Inuktitut, Ojibwe and Oji-Cree as a few examples.
First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada experience greater social and health inequities, leading to a disproportionately greater risk of negative health consequences, including higher rates of problematic substance use and poorer outcomes associated with substance use disorders. These inequities stem from intergenerational effects of colonialism, racism, residential school experiences and other discriminatory policies.
It’s important to acknowledge that higher rates of problematic substance use are not culturally characteristic but, rather, an outcome of systemic racism and inequity.
Within the network of federally funded treatment centres for First Nations and Inuit, cannabis consumption is consistently one of the top three substances for which clients, both adults and youth, seek treatment. ISC recognizes that cannabis consumption has been an ongoing issue. As a result, substance use treatment and aftercare programming have and will continue to address cannabis consumption. Thank you.
Jack Glick, Senior Policy Advisor, Excise Policy, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of the committee tonight.
As the committee is well aware, on October 17, 2018, access to cannabis for non-medical purposes became legal in Canada. As part of Budget 2018, following public consultations held in 2017, the government introduced a new federal excise duty framework on cannabis products legislated under a separate act, the Excise Act, 2001. All cannabis cultivators and manufacturers in Canada are required to obtain a cannabis excise licence from the Canada Revenue Agency and to remit the excise duty on cannabis products, where applicable.
The excise duty framework generally applies to cannabis products that contain THC, the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis. However, pharmaceutical products approved by Health Canada with a Drug Identification Number, or DIN, that are derived from cannabis and that can only be acquired through a prescription are not subject to the excise duty.
As part of the taxation framework, the federal government entered into Coordinated Cannabis Taxation Agreements, or CCTAs, with most provincial and territorial governments — all those except Manitoba — with the objective of helping to minimize the administrative burden on producers through a single, federally administered regime.
The excise duty rate on dried cannabis products, which represents the bulk of the market, is usually $1 per gram. The revenues from the excise duties are shared on a 75-25 basis, with 75% going to provincial and territorial governments and the remaining 25% to the federal government. In practice, the coordinated framework provides for a federal excise duty and an additional excise duty in respect of participating provinces and territories.
In Budget 2019, a new excise duty was introduced on cannabis edibles, topicals and extracts, including cannabis oils, based on the total quantity of THC contained in a product. The excise duty on these so-called cannabis 2.0 products is a combined federal-provincial-territorial rate of $0.01 per milligram of THC, revenues from which are subject to the same 75-25 split with participating provinces and territories.
The most recent changes to the excise duty framework were announced in Budget 2022. These measures aimed to streamline, strengthen and adapt various operational aspects of the taxation framework, including permitting excise duty remittances for certain smaller cannabis licensees to be made on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2022.
Finally, the federal taxation framework, along with the coordinated taxation regime, has helped contribute to the goals of cannabis legalization, with the legal market representing nearly 70% of sales as of the second quarter of 2022.
I would now turn it over to my colleague specializing in Indigenous Tax Policy.
Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Taxation Policy, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, chair and honourable senators, for the invitation to appear tonight before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
[Translation]
Good evening and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today.
[English]
I would like to start by recognizing the important role that Indigenous tax jurisdiction and sharing arrangements contribute to nation-to-nation fiscal relationships.
The government is committed to negotiating tax arrangements with Indigenous governments for the purposes of generating revenues to support their community priorities and advance self-determination.
The Department of Finance is working closely with Health Canada and has participated in Health Canada’s discussion tables with individual Indigenous communities, in particular with the Mohawks of Kahnawà:ke as well as Nekaneet First Nation in Saskatchewan.
Following the committee’s 2018 report on Bill C-45, the government made budget commitments to engage with interested Indigenous governments on the development of a new sales tax framework focused on four products. Those four products include cannabis but also include fuel, alcohol and tobacco. We refer to this proposed taxation framework for sales taxes on those four products as FACT sales taxes.
In part, the commitment to work with Indigenous governments on the development of a new sales tax framework was driven by the high degree of interest that First Nations and Indigenous governments expressed in generating revenues from the newly regulated cannabis market.
In the summer of 2022, the Department of Finance launched an engagement and collaboration process focused on designing elements of the framework in partnership with Indigenous governments and organizations.
I am pleased to report that we are now in the midst of the initial engagement process and are well on our way to identifying key interested parties to work with on the development of this new fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco sales tax framework for interested Indigenous communities.
In particular, we are working closely with the First Nations Tax Commission, led by Chief Commissioner Manny Jules, to discuss their views and proposals on design of the key elements of the framework and, as importantly, to facilitate direct engagement with interested First Nations.
I would also like to recognize that a new FACT sales tax framework would complement existing Indigenous tax arrangements that are already available and that have been in place with some 61 First Nations and Indigenous governments across Canada. Those are Goods and Services Tax arrangements and other types of arrangements, such as First Nations Personal Income Tax arrangements with self-governing groups, as well as many real property taxation regimes.
These regimes, such as the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Agreements and real property tax regimes already provide approaches for Indigenous governments to generate tax revenues from regulated cannabis activities.
Finance Canada is committed to continuing to work together with Indigenous governments to advance our mutual goals of supporting revenue generation opportunities through tax jurisdiction arrangements — arrangements that can meet the interests of all parties.
Thank you. We look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now begin the question-and-answer session.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Almond, thank you for your testimony.
You probably know we’ve heard from Manny Jules and got a very optimistic assessment of his work with your department, and you’ve confirmed that with your evidence.
You are in the midst of engagement. What are the next steps? What can we expect to see to make this happen? Will there be a requirement for legislation? How will this come to fruition?
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much for the questions.
The steps involved are direct engagement with Indigenous organizations, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, as well as direct engagement following that with Indigenous governments that are interested in this framework. It is a voluntary framework.
Once we’ve identified, as partners, Indigenous governments and communities that would like to move forward, we’ll be working closely and collaboratively with these First Nations and organizations, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, to develop the terms of the agreement that would specify the relationship and the elements of the taxation framework.
It’s also viewed that there will likely be a need for federal legislation in order to provide the authority for the overarching framework and potential harmonization with Goods and Services Tax frameworks.
We anticipate the engagement and initial development stages to be completed in January or February 2023, at which point we would then be engaging in the direct development of the agreements and the drafting of legislation to support the framework.
Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Glick, we were just at a Social Affairs Committee meeting discussing suicide and the problem among Indigenous communities, and the president of ITK — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami — identified youth consumption of cannabis under 25 as contributing to problems.
Your survey that you described gives you data on adults, and the frequency of use among adults. That was the RHS, the First Nations Regional Health Survey, I think you called it.
Do you know anything about the consumption of cannabis among youth, which, of course, was a big concern when the bill was passed?
Mr. Glick: Thank you for the question. I believe Dr. Adams provided that testimony regarding the RHS.
Senator Patterson: I’m sorry if I’m asking the wrong person. Pardon me. Thank you, Mr. Glick.
Dr. Adams: Each of the Regional Health Surveys is adapted for their particular region or province or territory, so the questions are not consistent across the board.
However, the majority of those surveys do have an age component, so there is a very specific survey for underage children, including a younger set and a teen set. There are some questions around cannabis initiation and cannabis use. It’s not consistent, so we really only have regional data, and it does show that there is high utilization among some of the youth but not all of them.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses.
Building on what Senator Patterson just asked, I want you to further elaborate on what you said in your testimony regarding cannabis consumption being an ongoing issue. With youth consumption, I think that would be a growing issue. You also said that cannabis education is necessary.
I was curious as to the kind of education that is being undertaken and what other programs are needed, especially to address the issues of cannabis consumption among youth.
Dr. Adams: Cannabis education is not something that we would lead on. That’s something we would ask communities, “What do you want to say to your own members or to your own youth around cannabis that you think might have an effect on cannabis usage?”
I think most communities would say that they would like to lower their cannabis use rates, especially among young people.
Senator Martin: Would you work with those communities?
Dr. Adams: Yes, we would work with those communities to talk about that particular messaging. However, that messaging must compete with other messaging that they want to put out around smoking or alcohol or the social determinants of Indigenous health, like staying in school and mental health.
Senator Martin: Are you working with communities right now, and could you describe what is being done in regards to cannabis education?
Dr. Adams: In British Columbia, which is where we see a lot of leadership around health messaging, they have strength-based messaging around traditional knowledge for young people: Is cannabis part of a traditional repertoire like our usual roots-and-berries medicinal approach? What is resilience? Is the use of alcohol or drugs something that helps you be resilient?
Those are a series of posters and promotions that are actually quite beautiful and green with a lot of cedar trees and youth in traditional dress so that it is more strengths-based than a scare tactic.
Senator Martin: As the deputy chief medical officer, in your position, what are the concerns you have regarding cannabis consumption? You say it’s an ongoing issue, but what are your key concerns since legalization?
Dr. Adams: I listed a few here in my notes. I didn’t read them out.
I am concerned about fetal exposure, because any psychoactive substance usage by mothers while a baby’s brain is developing needs to be examined and then examined again. People are also worried that, like with alcohol, there are risks of physical injuries related to intoxication. I think as far as mental health, people do wonder if it is a gateway drug. Does it cause depression? Does it cause apathy? All of those really need to be examined.
Senator Martin: Are there studies being undertaken at this time specific to these concerns you’ve raised?
Dr. Adams: Simon Fraser University has a cannabis research chair, and I know he, as part of his general cannabis-related research, does look at some Indigenous issues, but I don’t think he’s issued any reports yet. Of course, there are general studies around cannabis usage and health around the world.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here. I’ll start with Dr. Evan Adams, just to continue a little bit.
You mentioned the gap in health data. I think that’s what we’re seeing here. You already mentioned that in your own remarks. Do you have a recommendation related to remedying that gap we’re seeing in health data regarding cannabis use and its impact on Indigenous populations across Canada?
Dr. Adams: There are probably existing cannabis-related data sets that Indigenous identifiers could be matched to. That’s something that every province, territory and the tripartite partners, the federal family and Indigenous stakeholders, whether it’s a community or an organization, should be doing regularly. If they have questions around lung cancer, they should be able to go to a lung cancer data bank and match their membership set with that data and get a sense of how Indigenous people are doing as far as lung cancer goes. That should be a normal activity. I think we saw during COVID that our capacity to share personal and public health data is limited and needs to be improved in Canada. That’s definitely true with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
Senator Coyle: What would it take for that to actually happen?
Dr. Adams: I think it would take political will, first of all, in that if leadership agrees that we can share data, we have a strong enough relationship between us and the federal family — say Statistics Canada or Indigenous Services Canada — and provinces and territories and their ministries of health and Indigenous stakeholders who hold data or Indigenous data stewards. If they’re in a good relationship and they’re trusting, then they can match the data, whatever they’re holding and agree to the way forward. The matching and sharing of the data is not the point. The point is to have better outcomes, and that requires a relationship.
Senator Coyle: Mr. Glick, I don’t know if you can answer this question, but as we look at the economic opportunity associated with cannabis for Indigenous communities, I’m interested if we know or have data on how much tax has been raised through the Indigenous market. Do we have that information? If you don’t have it, does somebody else have it? Could you give us an idea of the scope?
Mr. Glick: That’s a very good question. I did follow up with colleagues from the Canada Revenue Agency to determine whether or not they had data on licensees in the cannabis regime from Indigenous communities that would be operating in a space and remitting excise duties to the CRA. They don’t necessarily track that data. I don’t believe they’re at committee this evening, but I do know that Health Canada colleagues would likely have that data, and they could at least give a quantum of how many Indigenous groups would be involved with being licensed.
Whether or not you would be able to suss out the economic opportunities from the number of licensees may not necessarily be possible.
Senator Coyle: But tax has been remitted from those licensees, has it not?
Mr. Glick: It would be, but I wouldn’t be able to tell you exactly how much because we do not have access to that data at Finance Canada.
Senator Coyle: So CRA would have it?
Mr. Glick: They would be able to, but it might require coordination with colleagues at Health Canada to determine where a licensee is located, for example, in an Indigenous community.
Senator Coyle: Okay, thank you. I have one more question for Mr. Almond. Thank you for your testimony. I am glad to hear that you’re in contact with the First Nations Tax Commission. We heard about the seven-part — I believe it was — proposal that they have.
You’ve spoken specifically about talking with individual First Nations and a little bit of your communication with Manny Jules. Of those seven elements of that proposal, can you give us your feedback on how realistic it is and what kind of time frame we might be looking at for implementation of that type of recommendation?
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much for the question. I’d be pleased to answer it to the best of my ability.
The seven elements that have been put forward by Mr. Manny Jules and the First Nations Tax Commission are very interesting. It is ambitious, I would say, from the point of view of a federal government official. There are a lot of steps, a lot of pieces and work involved in all of those steps.
I do know that we are making concrete, very positive progress on the first steps of those, which are with respect to putting forward and implementing and collaborating with Indigenous communities and the First Nations Tax Commission on the fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco sales tax framework. So that is a very big step forward. There are certainly other steps, clearly, from the point of view of the First Nations Tax Commission and Chief Commissioner Jules.
However, I would finish by simply saying that each of those steps requires a reasonable amount of time involved, and we’re focused on the fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco sales tax framework now, and we expect we will be over the next year to, possibly, 18 months. We’re working as hard as we can on it and acknowledging as well that we’ll have to continue additional work collaboratively with the First Nations Tax Commission on their additional proposals and the other elements in their proposed steps and plan.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Almond. I’m going to go to Senator Lovelace Nicholas in a minute, but before that I want to jump in with a quick question for Dr. Adams. Is cannabis for medical purposes covered under the non-insured health benefits program, or NIHB? Why or why not?
Dr. Adams: No, medical cannabis is not currently covered by non-insured health benefits. There certainly have been questions around that. Much like the medical community, there are few guidelines around what cannabis would be used for, specifically. We have definitely asked for it to be used in an off-label use. At the First Nations Health Authority in B.C. — I’m from B.C., so I know some of their issues well — the chiefs did ask if this is something we should be reviewing. Should we be reviewing the formulary and start to pay because maybe some citizens are asking for us to cover that? The answer was, quite clearly, no. The First Nations leadership didn’t want to be seen to be paying for those at this point in time.
However, their harm reduction thinking is not yet quite evolved. I would say many of the leadership are closer to being abstinence based rather than reducing harm.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you for being here this evening. Unfortunately, Senator Coyle had asked some of my questions, but that’s okay.
Senator Coyle: Sorry. Mind-meld.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I do have a follow-up to them. There’s a lack of data, yet they want to control the cannabis opportunities for First Nations. Why is that if you don’t know why there’s a gap?
Mr. Glick: Sorry, but if that question was in respect of cannabis licensees, I would say that it’s not so much of a lack of data. There are two separate licensing regimes: one under Health Canada and a separate one under the CRA. To operate within the industry, you need to be in possession of both. My understanding is — and Health Canada colleagues can clarify this later if needed — there are over 800 licensees that hold both. You need both to operate, but only about 250 out of that 800 plus have actually remitted excise duties within the last year or so. We would look at the universe of licensees that benefit from the economic opportunities that I would be able to speak to. That is, where they remit excise duties, they’re subject to Finance Canada’s excise duty framework, and where the communities upon which they might operate are not necessarily identified in their Canada Revenue Agency licence, it doesn’t mean it isn’t in their Health Canada licence.
There might be an opportunity for synergy between Health Canada, the CRA and Finance Canada to determine which licensees operate within an Indigenous context, whether it’s in a community or if the principals holding the licence are from an Indigenous background. In that case, we could explore the accrued economic benefits to those parties. It’s not a gap but more of a lack of synergy at the present time in the data sharing itself.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Okay. In our treaties, as you know, we have a right to grow and hunt to survive and feed our families. So if we want to start a cannabis grow op, wouldn’t that be the same as trying to feed your family and earn a living? That question is for whoever wants to answer.
Mr. Glick: Thank you for that question. Where, again, Health Canada and the CRA process the licences themselves for operating within the framework, those questions would probably be better directed towards Health Canada and CRA officials, acknowledging that I don’t believe CRA officials are here this evening.
A number of conditions are laid out within the Excise Act, 2001, that determine whether or not somebody might be eligible to operate a cannabis production facility with an excise licence.
I think I understand where the question is coming from, but I’m not sure I could say that there’s necessarily a barrier that would prevent Indigenous-related operators from engaging in the industry.
Dr. Adams: I did say in my notes that we haven’t been looking at issues of self-determination, reconciliation and economic opportunity licensing because it is not directly related to health, but it is indirectly related to health. For instance, we know that wealthier people are healthier people — wealth can beget health — and we can address the social determinants of health with economic opportunity. Everyone should have access to good jobs, fair wages, economic opportunity and business development to mitigate poverty.
The leap to selling cannabis in order to promote health is a bit of a long one, but the connection between economic opportunity and health absolutely exists and has been shown over and over again.
Senator Boniface: In terms of the gaps in health that you referred to, was there not at some point in putting the legislation together where Health Canada would have looked at a baseline so you could actually look at what the impact was five years after the legalization date?
Dr. Adams: Are you asking if there is a measure of wealth before legalization and then afterwards?
Senator Boniface: No, I’m talking about it from a health perspective and the impacts. For instance, you referred to fetal exposure, physical risk and those sorts of things. Was there nothing put in place to try to measure that?
Dr. Adams: That’s a question for Health Canada. Health Canada had been asked to look at the health risks specifically around cannabis legalization.
Senator Boniface: Let me flip the question the other way. You indicated in your evidence that there were gaps in health data. Did those same gaps exist when the legislation came in as exist today?
Dr. Adams: No, the Indigenous health data gaps are specific to Indigenous people. There’s existing cannabis health data, but we can’t identify the Indigenous portion of those data. There’s limited ability to match Indigenous identity with cannabis health data, so the gap is related in part to indigeneity.
The Chair: Thank you for that. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank all of our witnesses for meeting with us today.
I would now like to introduce our next panel of witnesses. From Justice Canada, we have Norma Won, Senior Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services; and from Health Canada, we welcome Kendal Weber, Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch; and John Clare, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch.
Officials from each department will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Since we have several witnesses and a limited amount of time, I’ll ask everyone to keep their interventions as precise and as brief as possible. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I’ll indicate when witnesses or senators have one minute left of their allocated time. In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I will ask them to send a written response to the clerk before Friday, November 4, 2022.
I will now invite Kendal Weber to provide opening remarks.
Kendal Weber, Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin Nation.
My team has met in person with Algonquin communities in this region over the past few years, and we greatly appreciate their perspectives on cannabis legalization and regulation.
Thank you for the opportunity to update the standing committee. Our update today builds on a previous progress update, in 2019. It also builds on written updates that Health Canada mailed to First Nation, Inuit and Métis leadership in 2018, 2019, 2021 and September 2022.
Support for self-determination and advancing reconciliation are key objectives of the Government of Canada. One of the key priorities for Health Canada over the next 18 months will be to respond to the work of an expert panel that has been mandated to conduct a systematic, evidence-based review of the legislation.
On September 22, 2022, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions launched the legislative review and named Mr. Morris Rosenberg as chair. Mr. Rosenberg will be joined by four panellists with expertise in the fields of public health and public safety, who will be named once the appointment process is complete.
[English]
Together, the panel will review evidence and engage with stakeholders, other levels of government and with First Nations, Inuit and Métis to determine what progress the government has made toward achieving the public health and public safety objectives of the Cannabis Act. The panel will take a broad approach to its review and will examine the impact of cannabis legislation and regulation on Indigenous persons and communities.
As an initial step, a report entitled Summary from engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples: The Cannabis Act and its impacts was published. The paper reflects and seeks to validate what Health Canada heard in its engagement with Indigenous peoples on the Cannabis Act. The paper invites further perspectives, evidence and suggestions on ways the expert panel should engage with Indigenous peoples.
Health Canada sees the review as an important part of broader engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis, one which will contribute to the improved functioning of the act.
Since 2016, Health Canada officials have participated in approximately 290 engagement sessions with Indigenous leaders, organizations and communities to discuss cannabis legalization and regulation. This engagement has directly informed policy and program development and influenced how Health Canada administers the Cannabis Act to better address Indigenous interests.
This includes specific efforts in three main areas: culturally appropriate public education and awareness, cooperative approaches to the exercise of jurisdiction and actions to encourage interested Indigenous communities to participate in the licit cannabis industry.
The government has provided funding for culturally specific research, knowledge, translation, prevention and harm reduction about cannabis. Health Canada has translated existing public education resources into 12 Indigenous languages and dialects.
Since 2019, Health Canada has held discussions with an increasing number of interested First Nations developing their own cannabis control measures to explore mutually beneficial cannabis arrangements within the framework of the Cannabis Act, and we’re happy to go into more details in the question-and-answer session about those arrangements.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Weber.
Norma Won, Senior Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada:
Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Our understanding is that the committee invited the Department of Justice to take part in this panel on the implementation of the Cannabis Act. As a lawyer at Health Canada, I provide legal advice to Health Canada on the various pieces of legislation Health Canada is responsible for, including the Cannabis Act and its regulations.
[English]
Although the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-45, which became the Cannabis Act, Health Canada is primarily responsible for the implementation of the act. I understand the committee is interested in Indigenous authority and jurisdiction in relation to cannabis.
As you may know, the federal Cannabis Act is a law of general application, and as such, it applies across Canada. Indigenous regulatory authority can derive from a number of sources, including rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982; historic and modern treaties and land claim agreements; self-government agreements and federal legislation such as the Indian Act.
As noted by my colleague Kendal Weber from the Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch at Health Canada, Health Canada has held many meetings with Indigenous communities and/or provincial and territorial officials where issues of jurisdiction and authority have been raised. My Health Canada colleague spoke to an agreement that was concluded with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke about cooperation and information sharing in relation to activities with cannabis.
Issues of Indigenous authority and jurisdiction will likely be raised again during the legislative review of the Cannabis Act, and we welcome those discussions.
Again, thank you for the invitation to appear here today. I would be pleased to answer questions within my capacity as Justice Canada’s counsel for Health Canada concerning the implementation of the Cannabis Act.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Won.
Senator Tannas: Welcome to the witnesses.
I had submitted through Senator Gold’s office about a week ago some questions with respect to getting an update on the economic development progress.
When we first looked at this bill, there were concerns raised by a number of us, including me, about how we needed to create specific opportunities for Indigenous businesses to get into the cannabis market, in particular, the actual cultivation and growing sector.
It was proposed at one point that 20% of all the licences be issued to Indigenous businesses or businesses that are locating their facilities on Indigenous territories or Indigenous lands. There was a lot of back and forth about that and discussions about how it could work and so on. There were amendments, and there was a response that came that convinced us that the matters were well in hand and that Indigenous businesses and Indigenous communities would almost certainly meet or exceed that 20%. I recall a specific assertion from a government official that said 20% is low, and, “Why would we cap it? It’s going to be really great.”
I don’t have any premonition about what the answer is going to be, but I am certain that with six days’ notice, you have the answer: How many cannabis growing facilities are licensed and operating either with Indigenous ownership or on Indigenous lands or both?
Ms. Weber: Thank you for the advance notice of the question.
We know that Indigenous engagement and participation in the cannabis industry has increased over time, and we know there is more that can be done.
As of September 30, 2022, there were 55 Indigenous-affiliated applicants for commercial cannabis licences and 12 of those were located in First Nations communities. Those are the applicants in the queue, and that’s 33% of total applications. As of September 30, 2022, 47 Indigenous-owned or affiliated businesses have received commercial cannabis licences, including 6 located in First Nations communities, and that is 5% of total licences.
So, yes, 5% is lower than indicated in the 20% but it’s encouraging to see that 33% of total applications are Indigenous-affiliated applicants.
As of the same time frame in September, we have 33 Indigenous-affiliated hemp licence holders, and 3 Indigenous-affiliated hemp licence applicants. In total, I believe that’s 16% of the applicants in the queue. So we do see a number of them.
As for the support that’s provided, the department has put supports in place to support and enable Indigenous and Indigenous-affiliated applicants for federal licences. One of the things we’ve talked about is our cannabis licensing adviser. When a company does self-identify, then we have an adviser that works closely with that applicant through the licensing process. We also have an Indigenous navigator service that guides and assists applicants to answer requests and questions they may have about the cannabis regulatory process.
Our last point is the two-stage review process. This is where the Indigenous and Indigenous-affiliated applicants may have their applications reviewed without a fully built site, which is something that’s required for other applicants. Those are a couple of the measures that we’ve taken and continue to take to support increased participation of Indigenous-affiliated companies.
Senator Tannas: Can you repeat what you said about being fully built? What is that again?
Ms. Weber: Yes. Indigenous applicants may have their applications reviewed without a fully built site. For non-Indigenous or Indigenous-affiliated applicants, we require a fully built site before we can process the full application for approval.
Senator Tannas: So, in the numbers you gave us, you’re not counting applicants that have been approved but haven’t actually built the place and are operating, are you?
Ms. Weber: I’m giving two numbers. I’ve counted those who have come in for a licence and have been granted a licence. Whether they have built a location, I do not have that information this evening. The other number I provided is those applicants in the queue for review. I will ask my colleague Mr. Clare if we collect the data on whether the site has been built.
John Clare, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Yes, I can clarify that. Before the final licence is actually issued, the facility has to be built. The difference that Ms. Weber is referring to is whether or not we proceed with the screening of the application prior to the facility being constructed or not. When it’s an Indigenous-affiliated applicant, they can start the review process prior to the facility being built because we know that progressing through the licensing process allows applicants to go to sources of capital and lending to help build the facility.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. We’re getting somewhere. I just want to be clear on this. How many are Indigenous-owned or community-located licences and how many are fully licensed? It sounds like there are some where, “Okay, this is a good licence,” and there is the official licence before they start production. How many are producing? Is that the 47?
Mr. Clare: Yes, it is 47 out of 905 total licence holders. Understand that the 905 total licence holders include things like analytical testing licences and so on. That’s a big pool. It’s not just commercial production. The 47 licences are all commercial producers but that’s out of all the licences that Health Canada issues.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I’m going to follow up on this to delve into it a bit deeper. Of all the licensees that are commercial operators, what does that number look like? There’s 47 Indigenous out of a much larger bucket, but how many actual commercial operators are there out of that 900?
Ms. Weber: I don’t have that number in front of me. Mr. Clare, do you have that one?
Mr. Clare: It’s less. I believe it’s between 600 and 700. It changes every week. That’s why you’ve stumped us a bit.
Senator Coyle: I’m just trying to understand the scope of it. Thank you. I’m not sure whether this question is for Ms. Won, Ms. Weber or Mr. Clare, but it’s about jurisdiction and authority. It’s been mentioned by a number of people. We’ve heard it over and over again from our Indigenous community witnesses here. We’ve also heard about the difficulties around jurisdiction — not only the community having jurisdiction but also the potential conflicts with certain provincial authorities.
What is the Government of Canada doing — that is, if any of you are able to talk about this — around the issues related to federal, provincial and Indigenous jurisdiction?
Ms. Weber: Since 2019, the Government of Canada has been working and has sought to work trilaterally and bilaterally, when needed, with Indigenous communities and applicable provincial and territorial governments so that we can achieve a shared public health and public safety objective.
Regarding this trilateral work, we’ve had discussions on exploring ways for First Nations to increase their oversight of cannabis activities alongside the Cannabis Act. In June 2021, we reached our first beneficial agreement with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. This agreement established a process for cooperation and information sharing on a number of cannabis-related activities such as licensing, inspections, reporting, tracking and compliance. That’s a type of bilateral agreement that we have between the community and Health Canada.
We’ve had discussions with an increasing number of First Nations who are developing their own cannabis control measures. We’ve looked at cooperative applications of federal and First Nations cannabis frameworks and we’ve collaborated and reached out to jurisdictions across the country. That’s just a bit of information. If you’d like us to give you more, we can dig deeper into that, but that’s an overview and a concrete example of one of the bilateral agreements that we’ve achieved to date. We hope more will come.
Senator Coyle: The Quebec factor seems to be a major one coming up among at least a couple of our witnesses. Is there anything specific being done to work with the Province of Quebec specifically around these issues of jurisdiction for Indigenous communities on this cannabis file?
Ms. Weber: We work with all jurisdictions, so with all provinces. I can’t speak specifically about one jurisdiction or one province or territory over another. We’re keen to work with all provinces and territories across the country and in communities in all jurisdictions.
Senator Patterson: Ms. Weber, we heard from Chief Tonya Perron of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke who spoke about how the band is trying desperately to curb the illicit market. They’re trying to get to self-determination, but they are feeling very helpless because the Quebec government legislation gives the Quebec cannabis authority exclusive jurisdiction, and they cannot make an agreement with the Province of Quebec.
You talked about the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, you developed with the Mohawks of Kahnawà:ke as progress. However, with respect, the chief told us that the MOU is very limited in scope. It focuses on exchange of information between Health Canada and their cannabis control board. It doesn’t touch on jurisdiction or anything else.
They want authority to regulate and deal with the illicit market that is of great concern in their community and is requiring a lot of resources, but they’re not getting very far with Health Canada and with that MOU that you described.
Is that a fair summary of the situation, that it’s a very limited MOU that does not achieve the goals of the band to get self-determination and jurisdiction?
Ms. Weber: Thank you for the question. The MOU is a very positive first step, and it covers an area that Health Canada, the Government of Canada and the community have worked together to achieve.
Questions like this are ones that will be interesting as the expert panel that I discussed in my opening remarks undertakes the legislative review of the Cannabis Act. The observations that have been made are ones that are quite useful as that review goes forward.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome to the witnesses today. My first question is for Norma Won.
I’m confused here, and I’ll tell you why. You’re asking for licences on treaty land where we have the right to grow, to hunt, to survive and to feed our families. How could you not give us licences without having to vet for them or apply?
Ms. Won: As I noted earlier, the federal cannabis law is a law of general application, so it does apply across Canada. That means anyone who wishes to conduct activities with cannabis will have to get a licence under the Cannabis Act.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That’s the same thing as trying to feed your family by opening up whatever you call the buildings, co-ops or whatever.
This question is for Kendal Weber. You said that you consulted communities about the licences. Could you send us the names of the communities you consulted and spoke to about the licences?
Ms. Weber: Are you referring to the 290 engagements that we’ve had?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. Maybe you didn’t name my community; I don’t know.
Ms. Weber: Those are a number of engagements that we’ve had throughout the past number of years on a number of different topics. Some of them would be regulatory discussions. Some of them would be about the act. Some of them would be about the regulations. There is quite a diverse listing there.
I can get back to you on that for those who may identify as wanting to share that information and those who would not. Not every group that does meet with us would ask for that information to be shared, but I’m happy to look into that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: All right. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Ms. Weber, I have a question for you. What is the average cost to apply for a cannabis licence, and has the department evaluated what barriers Indigenous applicants face in applying for a licence? If so, what were the results?
Ms. Weber: Thank you for the question. I am going to turn to John Clare on this. The department just undertook a review looking at our cost-recovery regime.
Mr. Clare: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. There’s a licence application fee, which is what Ms. Weber is referring to from a cost-recovery standpoint, but I think your question is asking how much it costs to open a business, to become either a cannabis cultivator or a licensed cannabis processor.
The answer to that is difficult because the regime is designed to accommodate businesses of any size and scale. There are actually two different licence classes for cultivation — the growing of cannabis plants — and what we call processing, which is the transformation of the plant material into finished consumer products. There’s a standard class for each of those, and there is also a micro-class, so that’s a small scale.
There are folks in the industry who have claimed that they have obtained a micro-cultivation licence for about $10,000. There is one particular licensee in British Columbia who has become a bit of a celebrity by talking about how she obtained her licence, the costs and what it actually took for her to do that. I don’t think that’s necessarily typical for a lot of applicants, because there are others. The Aurora facility on the edge of Edmonton International Airport is massive, and I’m sure it’s a multimillion-dollar facility. So it’s hard to say how much would actually be necessary. It depends on the ambition of the entrepreneur.
Whether or not there are barriers and obstacles for First Nations, Inuit or Métis entrepreneurs to enter the cannabis space — undoubtedly there are — those kinds of barriers to economic development in Indigenous communities are well documented.
We work with our partners in Indigenous Services Canada. I know you heard from the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch on the first panel, but we equally work with our partners in ISC who are responsible for economic development and supporting economic development in Indigenous communities to ensure that cannabis entrepreneurs do have access to programs like their CROP program.
Just recently, we worked with ISC and the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council to launch — I’m going to get the name wrong, but it’s an ISC program that’s there to support entrepreneurs in British Columbia, whether they want to develop a cannabis cultivation facility or go into value-added or associated industries, whether that’s in equipment or things like that which don’t necessarily require a Health Canada licence.
The Chair: I don’t know if I heard that your department has actually evaluated the barriers that are faced by Indigenous applicants.
Mr. Clare: In the engagement sessions that Ms. Weber talked about, we have definitely heard from them, and we have worked with Indigenous Services Canada and Indigenous partners to address some of those barriers. Ms. Weber talked about some of the programs that Health Canada offers in terms of obtaining a Health Canada licence through the Navigator Service and the licensing adviser.
We don’t have economic development funding to provide to First Nations, so we work with federal partners in Indigenous Services Canada to make sure that they’re aware of those barriers and that their programs are eligible for cannabis entrepreneurs.
Senator Boniface: Thank you to the witnesses. My question is to Kendal Weber.
On the study that Morris Rosenberg will lead, could you tell me what aspects of the black market you will be looking at? We’ve heard here, and certainly there is a lot of other evidence, that the black market has not been affected in the way that was originally planned.
Ms. Weber: Thank you for the question. The key themes in the legislative review include progress made in deterring criminal activity and displacing the illicit cannabis market, and on progress towards providing adults with access to strictly regulated, lower-risk, legal cannabis products.
There are different sources for finding out how much progress we have made in displacing the illicit market. Our data right now shows that the value of the licit market in Canada has reached 69%. There are different views on that number, but the data that we get from Statistics Canada shows a 69% licit market versus the illicit market.
That will be a piece that the expert panel will dig into given that’s one of the key priorities and objectives of the act.
Senator Boniface: Can you just clarify for me, was the 69% “licit” or “illicit”?
Ms. Weber: Licit.
Senator Boniface: So 31% of the market is still being controlled by organized crime. Is that correct?
Ms. Weber: Our data is showing the legal share of the value of cannabis consumed has increased to 69%.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome again. You said it costs $10,000 for a licence. So that leaves people on social assistance unable to ever afford to open up a dispensary. They’re either left out or left behind. What happens to them?
Ms. Weber: Thanks for the question. I’ll turn to Mr. Clare to provide a little bit of information about the difference between the commercial licensing and also the role of retail.
Mr. Clare: To be clear, I was speaking of obtaining a federal licence for the cultivation of cannabis. That’s the production of plants, the growing of plants and then processing it into consumer products. It doesn’t refer to opening up a retail store. I imagine that the costs of opening up a retail store would be different than those associated with production. For that, I don’t know how much, to be honest, it would cost to open up a retail store.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you so much for your answer.
Senator Patterson: Ms. Weber, thank you for the information about the illicit versus the licit markets. How accurate do you think the information is from the black market? Are they always forthcoming in disclosing the size of their businesses?
Ms. Weber: That’s a good question. This is one where we do collect the data from Statistics Canada. I’ll turn it over to Mr. Clare.
Mr. Clare: There was a question in the first panel about whether or not the government has collected pre-legalization data so that we have a baseline. The answer to that is yes, both on the public health aspect and on tracking the progress towards displacement of the illicit market.
The two major goals the government set were to reduce the public health harms associated with cannabis use and to reduce the extent and scope of the illegal cannabis market. We use different surveys and different data sources to track those two big indicators.
When it comes specifically to the size and scale of the illicit versus the licit markets, the statistic that Ms. Weber is referring to is the quarterly estimate of household expenditures that StatCan releases on a quarterly basis for all household expenditures. Basically, the question for Canadian consumers is this: How much do you spend on cannabis and where do you spend it? Do you spend it on legal products or do you spend it on illegal products?
That’s the key metric that Ms. Weber referred to. We’ve seen that increase steadily since the Cannabis Act came into force. Based on the latest quarter for which we have data, 69% of household expenditures on cannabis are made in the legal market as opposed to those consumers going and purchasing that cannabis from an illegal source.
However, that’s not our only data source. We use a lot of other data sources to validate and corroborate that data. Another survey we have is called the Canadian Cannabis Survey. It’s something that Health Canada has administered on an annual basis. It asks individuals where they purchase their cannabis from. It corroborates that household expenditure data where it shows an increasing number of respondents to that survey indicate they are purchasing their cannabis from legal stores as opposed to illegal sources. We even asked them the reason why. We get answers like, “It’s convenient. The number of retail stores that have increased in my community makes it convenient for me to buy from a legal source. I have greater confidence in the quality of the product and I’m less concerned about it being contaminated and it being unsafe for me.” Price is also indicated as a reason that drives their purchasing patterns.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clare.
Before we go, can you please provide us in writing with a list of the barriers to licences and solutions introduced by your department, as well as the cost for licences, before November 4?
Ms. Weber: Yes, we can follow up on that.
The Chair: Thank you for that. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank all our witnesses for meeting with us today.
For our next panel, we wish to welcome, from Public Safety Canada, Chris Moran, Assistant Deputy Minister; and Kristin McLeod, Director, Drug Policy Division, Crime Prevention Branch. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have with us Maryanne Pearce, Acting Director, National Crime Prevention and Indigenous Policing Services; and Mathieu Bertrand, Superintendent, Acting Director General of Serious and Organized Crime and Border Integrity, Federal Policing Criminal Operations.
Officials from each department will be providing opening remarks of approximately five minutes each. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator.
Since we have several witnesses and a limited amount of time, I ask everyone to keep their interventions as precise and brief as possible. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will indicate when witnesses or senators have one minute left of their allocated time. In the event witnesses are unable to answer a question in full, I ask them to send a written response to the clerk before Friday, November 4, 2022.
I will now invite Chris Moran to give her remarks.
Chris Moran, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indigenous Secretariat, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m very pleased to be here this evening. I would like to thank the committee very much for the opportunity to speak with you.
I would also like to acknowledge that I am joining the committee from Ottawa, which, as you know, is a city founded and established on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. I want to recognize their history of welcoming people to this territory.
The impetus for the creation of this branch was the recognition of the need to provide a single point of contact into Public Safety Canada for Indigenous people and communities and to drive Public Safety Canada’s response to reconciliation, working collaboratively with Indigenous people, Indigenous stakeholders and other departments. Among other things, my team is working on the co-development of First Nations police services legislation in response to the government’s commitment to recognize culturally responsive police services as essential services. I would be pleased to provide the committee with information about that endeavour or about the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program.
I’m also joined by my colleague, Ms. Kristin McLeod, Director, Drug Policy Division, Crime Prevention Branch within Public Safety Canada. In this capacity, Ms. McLeod and her team support the implementation of public safety elements of the Cannabis Act. That includes coordinating with federal, provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners on measures to help displace the illegal market, and, on a case-by-case basis, helping connect First Nation communities facing community safety challenges related to cannabis with federal programs and services.
As you know, Public Safety Canada’s portfolio includes the RCMP, and I am also joined this evening by Superintendent Mathieu Bertrand and Dr. Maryanne Pearce, the director of contracting and Indigenous policing for the RCMP.
With your permission, I would ask Dr. Pearce to make some opening remarks on behalf of the RCMP, and then we would look forward to providing further information to the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Moran.
Maryanne Pearce, Acting Director, National Crime Prevention and Indigenous Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good evening, chair, and members of the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
Thank you very much for inviting us here as part of the study on the implementation of the Cannabis Act. As my colleague noted, I’m the acting director responsible for national crime prevention and the Indigenous policing services of the contract and Indigenous policing business line. I’m joined by Superintendent Mathieu Bertrand, who is responsible for border integrity and organized crime within the federal policing business line.
As Canada’s national police, the RCMP contributes to the administration of the Cannabis Act in several ways, including by working to keep the profits out of the hands of criminals and organized crime. With cannabis-specific funding allocated in 2018, the RCMP increased its capacity in the areas of prevention and engagement, intelligence, security screening, training, data collection and the provision of subject matter expertise to law enforcement.
The RCMP provides front-line policing services in all provinces and territories in Canada — with the exception of Ontario and Quebec — under police service agreements signed between the jurisdictions and Canada. This includes the provision of policing service to hundreds of Indigenous communities within Canada, part of which are delivered under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program administered by Public Safety Canada.
In line with this, contributing to safer and healthier Indigenous communities is one of five strategic priorities for the RCMP. Delivering culturally appropriate and responsive police services provides the necessary basis for strengthened partnerships and relationships with the Indigenous communities that the RCMP interacts with and serves.
We are committed to continuing to build on these relationships as we work to support, maintain and nurture honest and open dialogue with Indigenous communities and partners. The RCMP’s unique and, admittedly, complex history with Indigenous peoples in Canada better enables us to work collaboratively to improve community health and wellness. Through these efforts, we are well positioned to assist and advocate for Indigenous communities at the local, provincial, territorial and national levels.
Contract policing ensures a consistent quality of service across Canada. At the same time, each jurisdiction determines the level of policing service as well as the objectives, priorities and goals for policing in their respective jurisdictions. To that end, each jurisdiction can customize initiatives to address specific local needs. In the provision of services to Indigenous communities, the RCMP does work in the areas of education and awareness, prevention, early intervention and enforcement.
The RCMP acknowledges that it has an important role to play in improving and ensuring safety in Indigenous communities, and this includes reducing youth involvement in crime, both as victims and offenders, which comprises another one of the RCMP’s five strategic categories.
A key part in reducing youth crime and victimization is prevention and early intervention as well as the promotion of youth outreach and engagement. Some of these activities aim to increase youth awareness and influence youth through behaviour modelling, mentoring, active learning and engaging youth to positively influence their peers, schools and communities.
The RCMP provides front-line members with effective strategies for communicating and engaging youth on a variety of topics, including cannabis legislation, by soliciting input from youth across Canada through the RCMP’s National Youth Advisory Committee. The RCMP’s Centre for Youth Crime Prevention website also provides police officers and adults working with youth with evidence-informed and age-appropriate crime prevention tools, programs and resources to assist them in their interactions with youth at schools and in the community, including in relation to cannabis awareness.
In the spirit of reconciliation and in recognition of the value of community-led initiatives, the RCMP works closely with Indigenous communities and groups to develop innovative and culturally responsive policing approaches. Local priorities and crime prevention approaches are discussed regularly by RCMP detachment commanders and community leaders — chiefs and council and/or the mayors — to establish annual local policing priorities. The RCMP also collaborates closely with leaders and representatives of national Indigenous organizations to ensure the national Indigenous voice is also heard.
As Canada’s national police, the RCMP will continue to enforce the Cannabis Act as we strive to contribute to safer and healthier Indigenous communities and protect youth, including through continued engagement with communities and supporting education and awareness. The RCMP will also continue to uphold the mandate to prevent, disrupt and investigate serious criminal activity in partnership with contract partners, law enforcement, outreach services and communities across Canada.
Thank you for inviting us here today to discuss the implementation of the Cannabis Act. We’d be happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pearce.
I will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Boniface: Thank you all for being here.
In our last panel, we were asking questions around the impact on the black market, the illicit market, and so my question is for the superintendent, as I think it is appropriately answered by you. Could you give us an overview of how the black market has been affected since legalization? Would you think about it in the context of where it differs region to region, if you can do that as well?
Mathieu Bertrand, Superintendent, Acting Director General of Serious and Organized Crime and Border Integrity, Federal Policing Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you very much for your question.
I must admit, I don’t have the information to the latter part of your question. We could take that back and try and get you that information.
I’ll try and answer at a higher level as opposed to simply focusing on the black market. One of the challenges we’re faced with, and as reported in the public report by the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, is that there are over 2,600 organized crime groups operating in Canada. Of those, we know that there are over 175 of these groups that are assessed to have significant involvement in the illegal cannabis market.
Senator Boniface: If I understand correctly, you have the border integrity mandate as well?
Mr. Bertrand: That’s correct.
Senator Boniface: Can you give me an idea where the issues arise for you in terms of the illicit market? I’m thinking in terms of where your issues were before legalization and where you are after legalization. Is the market shifting in terms of where the groups are operating? Are there holes across the country that are becoming apparent?
Mr. Bertrand: Thank you for your question.
As you can imagine, we continuously assess how organized crime evolves, especially in this market. In regards to my primary mandate, which is border integrity, there are multiple domains that we’re monitoring, and there are, unfortunately, gaps and vulnerabilities in many of those areas.
For example, we do know that there is smuggling activity happening on the land border and in multiple communities and areas on the land border. There are also gaps and vulnerabilities in the air domain within either regulated or unregulated airports as well as the maritime domain.
We work with intelligence partners to try and determine where the most critical gaps and vulnerabilities are and prioritize those areas with the finite resources we have. In closing and to be quick, obviously, as you can imagine, it’s not only the RCMP that works to tackle these gaps and vulnerabilities. Obviously, we work in an integrated fashion, not only domestically but with our partners south of the border.
Senator Boniface: I think what we are trying to learn and the number we were given was a conclusion that 69% of the market is now coming through the legal outlets. I happen to have some connections as well in the policing community, and I’m not hearing that number remotely close to 69%. What would CISC or the RCMP say on that?
Mr. Bertrand: I do know that the RCMP is working closely with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, and they’re developing a comprehensive assessment of the Cannabis Act from an enforcement perspective. I don’t want to speak on behalf of the CACP. I do not believe that assessment is completed, but I’m sure we can take that away and report back to you.
I believe that assessment would likely address the concern that you’ve raised this evening. We are also working with Health Canada on their independent expert panel, and I have a feeling that area of concern may also be looked at on that assessment.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony. I would like to follow up on Senator Boniface’s questions. I’ll stick to the ones that are foremost in my mind.
Would you describe how you work closely or, I guess, effectively with First Nations police? How does that work with the policing outside of Canada? Obviously, in order to provide effective enforcement, there has to be that kind of working relationship. I’d like to hear about the effectiveness but also maybe some of the gaps and issues. This would be to the superintendent.
Mr. Bertrand: Thank you for your question. I’ll be very brief because I believe my colleague, Dr. Pearce, also has significant contributions from a contract and Indigenous policing business line.
I can say that in terms of federal policing, we do participate in regional-specific joint operations with partner law enforcement agencies, including Indigenous police services. That is both domestically in Canada and south of the border with our police partners.
Ms. Pearce: Thank you, sir. It’s kind of a complicated question because there are a lot of different elements to that. I’ll also ask Ms. Moran if she wants to talk about the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program.
In general, every detachment commander in Canada consults with their local community leadership, whether it’s mayor, chief and council, et cetera, on issues pertaining to policing importance as identified by the community. Detachment members participate in what’s called community consultative groups on areas of concern for the communities. Annual performance plans are created with a goal to meet identified communities when it comes to policing. Part of this annual performance plan is the drafting and agreements of the letters of expectation signed by the RCMP and community leadership. This letter of expectation outlines agreed-to areas of concern for the RCMP to address and work on for that year.
I’m not sure if that answers your question in full and I will be happy to follow up, but I thought Ms. Moran would like to speak on that part.
Ms. Moran: Thank you very much, Dr. Pearce, for that opening. Yes, under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, there are actually 36 First Nations police services, which are providing services to 155 communities. Those services are established according to the provincial jurisdictional framework. They receive the same authorities as other police services in the province, and they are effectively and substantially equivalent to other police forces. They work closely with other police services, be it through contract policing or municipal policing. I hope that helps.
Senator Martin: Are there gaps that need to be identified in order to ensure that enforcement is more effective?
Ms. Pearce: Before approving or taking action regarding the enforcement of cannabis and enforcement actions on Indigenous land, the RCMP’s approach to cannabis enforcement is to consult first with the divisional criminal operations officers and the Indigenous policing services. This is the first step. Divisional Indigenous policing services sections can provide historical and otherwise relevant information to divisional personnel regarding and involved in investigations related to Cannabis Act offences. The RCMP continues to employ a measured approach, which includes consultation with stakeholders to address the unlicensed sale of cannabis in communities. Increasing complaints and concerns about the products being sold and the potential sale to youth can prompt police action, to which there is often a goal to having illicit storefronts cease their operations. The RCMP is focused on this graduated approach to enforcement by first educating those involved in the activity, then progressing to warnings, followed by enforcement action. I hope that answers your question on that issue.
Senator Martin: It’s just that the numbers are concerning when you talk about 2,600 crime groups and only 36 First Nations services. I just think, just in the illicit market with cigarettes, there’s a growing concern of the illicit market that’s far greater than the legal market. I’m imagining that we’re facing the same sorts of issues.
I’m really wondering about these gaps in overall policing on nations and outside of them, where these gaps are and if there’s enough funding and resources to ensure that enforcement is there for those who need it most, especially the youth. That was more of a statement, but I know you’ve answered my questions already. In terms of funding, I guess we need more funding. Would that be an accurate statement?
Ms. Moran: With respect to the work that my team is doing, we are working to co-develop a legislative framework that would establish secure, sustainable and flexible funding for communities that wish to establish their own First Nations-led police service legislation.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses. As you know, this committee studied the Cannabis Act, when it was in the Senate, with a view to Indigenous issues. We were warned by some Indigenous leaders when the bill was being considered that, unless there was respect for Indigenous jurisdiction on reserve vis-à-vis production, sales and taxation, there was a danger that cannabis would become like illegal cigarettes — driven underground where prices are lower and potency is higher, as is the common narrative.
We’ve also heard in our hearings so far that there’s been very little progress in giving First Nations jurisdiction to control activities relating to cannabis on their lands, even though they want to. There’s been no carve-out in the Cannabis Act for bands to obtain jurisdiction, so illegal dispensaries are ubiquitous and uncontrolled.
Ms. McLeod, you talked about the mandate of Public Safety Canada to work with provinces and territories to displace the illegal market. Is the scenario I’ve described — where it’s been driven underground because no authority has been given to First Nations to have jurisdiction in these areas, and that it’s caused a problem of illegal and unregulated dispensaries — a fair description of what’s going on now?
Kristin McLeod, Director, Drug Policy Division, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
We’ve certainly heard about a number of issues that are playing out within communities with respect to the presence of illegal cannabis as well as some of the tensions that are present regarding the application of the Cannabis Act and the desire of a number of communities to develop their own regulations or bylaws.
Some of the issues we have heard relate to community safety challenges, such as increasing and unwanted traffic, as well as there being very strong concerns about the potential increase for organized crime activity within some communities.
Those are certainly issues that the federal government is taking very seriously, and we look for opportunities to be engaging with communities to address this. The federal government and Public Safety Canada does have some programs and services that are available to communities. For example, we have the First Nations Organized Crime Initiative. That provides funding to the Akwesasne Mohawk police service as well as the Kahnawake Peacekeepers to address organized crime in those communities. Public Safety Canada also has an Aboriginal Community Safety Planning Initiative that supports Indigenous communities in the development of community safety plans that are specific to their unique circumstances.
So in all, I would say that we’re very alive to a lot of the issues that are playing out, but we are also seeking to be responsive to some of those issues.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that answer. I wonder if you could kindly give the committee, through our clerk, information on the programs you described.
Ms. McLeod: We would be happy to.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses tonight. There are so many aspects to this legalization of cannabis and the impacts in Indigenous communities in Canada. Speaking about public safety and policing tonight, it’s very interesting.
One of the areas that had been talked about — without any certainty, of course — was that perhaps with the introduction of cannabis and community members taking up cannabis consumption — perhaps replacing some alcohol consumption with cannabis — there might be less violent crime, less intimate partner violence and that sort of thing.
Is there any kind of research going on that is looking at those factors?
Ms. McLeod: Thank you, senator.
Public Safety Canada has been undertaking research on a number of different public safety aspects of cannabis implementation, including, for example, looking at charging rates relating to simple possession and rates of drug trafficking. We’re certainly also aware that there are some gaps and challenges with respect to the collection of criminal charges and data. That is something we continue to work on with our colleagues at Statistics Canada and in law enforcement.
We are looking at pursuing a research agenda to look at a number of different aspects of public safety regarding cannabis implementation.
Senator Coyle: Does that include the levels of violent crime and the nature of violent crime compared to pre-cannabis days?
Ms. McLeod: That is something we haven’t developed a specific research project on. It is certainly something that we would be quite pleased to look at and explore.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a question for all our witnesses. What challenges do First Nations communities face in enforcing their laws related to cannabis on their lands, and how do challenges differ based on the type of policing arrangement, such as RCMP or First Nations police services?
Ms. Moran: With respect to the enforcement of Indigenous laws, Public Safety Canada is aware that First Nations communities do need the enforcement and prosecution in order to give practical effect to their right of self-determination. Band bylaws, when they are properly passed pursuant to federal legislation such as the Indian Act, could be enforced by police officers, including the RCMP or First Nations police officers in the communities that they serve.
I would note that police services do maintain operational discretion in their decisions on whether to enforce bylaws, and they will generally elect to enforce them consistently with core policing activities.
I would also note that this is a multifaceted issue. It is one where we do see gaps. However, there is work ongoing with the Department of Justice, Indigenous Services Canada as well as with the provinces to give practical effect to those laws. It is really in the space of prosecution that we do see the gap and those concerns over compliance with various Canadian and federal statutes, as well as the impression that Indigenous laws are civil in nature. We are seeing that as well.
We have done a lot of engagement over the past eight months on the work that we’re doing to bring forward legislation for First Nations police services, and this has been a very common topic.
Ms. Pearce: You asked about the RCMP. I can give you a quick summary on that related to bylaws.
All police agencies do have a role to play in the enforcement of Indigenous laws, and the RCMP’s law enforcement mandate is found in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations and by common law. Band bylaws properly passed pursuant to federal legislation, such as the Indian Act, may be enforced by the RCMP so long as the RCMP is the policing jurisdiction in the community that passed the bylaw.
Police services maintain, as my colleague mentioned, operational discretion in their decisions whether to enforce the bylaws, and they will generally only elect to enforce bylaws that are consistent with core policing activities associated with the maintenance of public safety and where there is a valid mechanism for the prosecution of the bylaw offences.
In addition, the RCMP participates in extensive community engagement in the Indigenous communities they serve. The purpose of such engagement is to improve the dialogue and interactions between the police and Indigenous communities. That close and frequent engagement also provides an opportunity for the community to contribute to the policy-making decisions that affect them.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Boniface: Can I quickly get an answer on when the legislation is coming forward for First Nations police services? Are we likely to see something that will address support for them to enforce the bylaws around this issue?
Ms. Moran: I don’t have a precise timeline to share with you. We are co-developing the legislation with the Assembly of First Nations, or the AFN. The process of co-development does rely on trust and on joint governance. We continue to make headway with the AFN on that. We’re working with other partners and stakeholders, including the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, as well as the First Nations Police Governance Council. There is a lot of interest in achieving this legislation and advancing this legislation. We are moving jointly at a pace. It’s difficult to say an exact date, but we are aiming to bring it forward as quickly as we can.
Senator Patterson: On Indigenous policing, in your testimony, I think it was Ms. Weber who talked about First Nations, Inuit and Métis with reference to policing. Do I understand that the Indigenous policing will apply to First Nations and not Inuit whom, I think, have exclusive policing agreements with either Quebec or with RCMP in their regions? This will be primarily a First Nations initiative; is that correct?
Ms. Moran: That is correct. Our mandate is to bring forward a legislative framework for First Nations policing. We are engaging right now with Inuit nations as well as stakeholders, and we are starting engagement with Métis nations and with Métis stakeholders as well.
Senator Patterson: But I think that’s more on recruitment, rather than taking over policing; is that right?
Ms. Moran: No, sir. That is actually to discuss the Inuit and Métis policing and community safety priorities. We are engaging with them to understand and to reflect, where we can, those interests and concerns in our work at Public Safety Canada looking at our program that we operate, the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: We’re running out of time here, but there are various questions which weren’t answered tonight by the witnesses. Can I please get your commitment to provide written responses to any outstanding questions to our clerk by November 4?
Ms. Moran: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, and I wish to thank all our witnesses for meeting with us today.
(The committee adjourned.)