THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:47 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 we are gathered on the traditional unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people and express gratitude for their role as the past, present and future caretakers of this land.
I’m Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I would now like to ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, from British Columbia.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, from New Brunswick.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
With the goal of informing and guiding our future work, the Committee on Indigenous Peoples is inviting witnesses to come and discuss their work and priorities. Today, we will hear from the following witnesses in the first panel: From the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, National Chief Elmer St. Pierre; and Lorraine Augustine, Chief and President of the Native Council of Nova Scotia.
National Chief St. Pierre will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Due to time constraints, please keep your exchanges brief and precise. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will hold this sign up when you have a minute left on your allocated time.
I will now invite National Chief St. Pierre to give his opening remarks.
Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional and unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people where we are meeting today. I would also like to recognize the legacy of Louis Riel today on the anniversary of his execution. We remember him as a great Métis leader and the sacrifices that he made on behalf of the Métis people across Turtle Island.
My name is Elmer St. Pierre, and I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. It is good to see many familiar faces.
For over 50 years, CAP has advocated for the rights and interests of the non-status and status off-reserve Métis and southern Inuit people. We are the national voice for our 11 provincial and territorial organizations. Today, more than 80% of the Aboriginal people live off reserve in urban, rural and remote parts of Turtle Island.
Often, CAP is the only voice of these communities, and we are the only group to truly speak for our people. I am sure you have seen the recent data from Statistics Canada that shows 800,000 Aboriginal people are not affiliated with the three NIOs that the government chooses to work with. We represent many of those people.
The priorities we will speak with you about today, senators, centre on their inclusion and support to address the urgent needs of our communities. Our main priority is the recognition of our rights and the right of self-determination. When Canada’s government fails to acknowledge the rights and existence of our communities, it leads to our exclusion from laws, policies, programs and services. This is the heart of all the work we do at CAP.
Current programs and services are not available to the off-reserve and the non-status communities. This leads to the further marginalization of our people, who are already the most vulnerable, those who are suffering historical trauma from colonial policies like the Indian Act and others. The results are the addiction, poverty, education, incarceration, health care, employment, families and other conditions never get better for our people. The government needs to address these specific and unique needs.
For years, the government has failed to recognize CAP’s people, and only after a 17-year battle did the question get answered once and for all in the CAP Daniels case. Non-status and Métis are indeed Aboriginal people under the Constitution of Canada. As a result of this victory, the Government of Canada signed a political accord to address the needs of our communities. Despite this agreement, we continue to be left out of vital policy and rights decisions. Our accord needs to be implemented in full and without delay.
This committee has an important role in addressing these issues. We ask that you ensure that of reserve are entrenched into every piece of legislation that is studied here. We urge you to challenge distinctions-based language when it is used to exclude CAP and other groups. The committee completed meaningful work under Bill S-3, and we commend you for ensuring CAP’s voice was reflected in the report. The lack of attention paid to rural and urban issues needs to be addressed, and we call upon the Senate to work on this.
A good example is the disregard we have faced is Bill C-29. There was no co-development, and if implemented today, the National Council for Reconciliation would exclude our people and leave thousands of us without a voice. Where is our seat on this council? This is not consistent with the TRC Calls for reconciliation. We need to discuss the bill in more detail with the committee when it begins its review.
Despite the barriers that have been placed in our way, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples continues to work hard for the forgotten Aboriginal people. During the pandemic, we mobilized and met the demands of our communities, providing support and services to thousands of people from coast to coast. Despite having to take the Government of Canada to court to get that support, Canada and its PTOs are actively involved in research, policy and programming for off-reserve and non-status people. Despite this, our communities are in critical need of help.
Change is needed. Access to existing programs and taking an inclusive approach is the first step. Fulfilling the CAP-Canada Accord, implementing the Daniels decision and respecting the rights of non-status and off-reserve people is key. We offer a great benefit to Canada to advance the effort of reconciliation if they would simply work with our communities to address their concerns. If we are truly to have reconciliation in our country, all Aboriginal people must be a part. It is the only way forward.
I thank you for your time, and I am looking forward to your questions. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, National Chief.
Before we go to questions, I will remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning too close into the microphone or remove your earpiece before doing so.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for your presentation.
I did not catch at the beginning when you said represent non-status, status, Métis and southern —
Mr. St. Pierre: Southern Inuit.
Senator Patterson: Southern Inuit. Okay. I am from Nunavut, so I am interested in that. There is a national organization, ITK. I believe they do consider what we call southern Inuit, but your organization is also serving southern Inuit?
Mr. St. Pierre: Yes. The president there is Todd Russell. He has no — how to say it — ITK does not represent his people.
Senator Patterson: That explains it to me. Thank you.
Mr. St. Pierre: You are welcome.
Senator Patterson: If I may, you spoke about how distinction-based language leaves the people that CAP represents out. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on that, please.
Mr. St. Pierre: Within our organization, we have what we call table set up, where we have education, language and justice, just to name a few. Through speaking with the bureaucrats or servicers, they are telling us that under education, for instance — and they said this themselves — all of the money is put in silos and goes under the other three NOIs, which are MNC, AFN and ITK. When it comes down to CAP and our people across Canada, our youth who want to carry on to college or university, there is no funding there. You have to fall under a distinction base. Any time that I talk, and I’m with FPT meetings and usually the other three groups are there, that’s the first thing that is coming out of their mouth. I talk simply and I talk through my heart. When I’m talking, they step up and say, “Oh, if you are distinction-based,” which means, “CAP, you don’t have money or resources.” That’s exactly what the distinction-based falls under, and that’s what the government is using.
Senator Patterson: I have more, but I could defer to second round, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I’ll ask this question to either or both of you. In your view, are there priority topics that could be studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples? If so, please explain. I know, National Chief, you touched on some of them. Ms. Augustine, please go ahead.
Lorraine Augustine, Chief and President, Native Council of Nova Scotia, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, there are.
I think the biggest issue, especially when you are talking about reconciliation and Canada wanting to work with all Indigenous peoples, is that unfortunately the non-status and the off reserve are left out of that process. We weren’t consulted. We weren’t even talked to about reconciliation. You can’t have reconciliation without all Indigenous peoples. All have to be involved. With UNDRIP, it is very clear that it talks about all Indigenous peoples. It doesn’t define if we live off the reserve or if we’re status or non-status. It just says “Indigenous peoples.” I think that we need to be included in the reconciliation.
The other important issue is our treaties. That’s very important.
I keep referring to UNDRIP because we have a right to self-determination. We have a right to self-governance. It also says that you can choose who your representative body is. Some of our Indigenous peoples refer to our constituency. They refer to us. We’re there for them. We’re being held back in moving forward with that because we’re completely left out. Sometimes we’re contacted to consult, but we’re always an afterthought, and that’s okay because we still get our chance to speak. The issue is they do contact us in some areas, but they are not listening to us. When we submit any kind of report or what we need as Indigenous peoples living off the reserve, even though their hands are out and they are saying, “Oh, yeah, we’ll get your input,” the input is not being put forward in those reports. So we’re left out.
I could go on and on, but I’m sure you have other questions where I could fit some other stuff in.
The Chair: I have one little question, just for the benefit of the committee. I know what the term “non-status” is, but could you explain it so the committee has a better understanding?
Ms. Augustine: I absolutely can. Under the colonial policy called the Indian Act, “non-status” is that you are not eligible to become status Indian. That could be based on marriage. I’ll give you an example. I’m a status Indian, and I married a non-Indigenous man. Because of the way the policy of the Indian Act works, my son is a Bill C-31, which means he is only half. My granddaughter is not eligible, so she is what you classify as a “non-status.” Even though she is Indigenous, even though I will make sure that she knows her traditions and her knowledge, under the federal government colonial policy called the Indian Act, she will not be a status Indian ever, unless that changes.
The Chair: That’s a good explanation. Thank you for that, Chief.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your testimony this evening.
You mentioned several times that you haven’t been consulted and that you have been excluded. Have you had any participation with government policies and legislation as an organization?
Mr. St. Pierre: No. Well, I can’t say no. They gave us a total of roughly three hours of consultation talks with the UNDRIP. That was it. Then we found out afterwards the other three organizations got six months worth of consultation talks. That’s about it. When it comes down to consultation talks, we are not at the table. There are a few FPT tables that we’re not invited to. So under the consultations and that, no, we’re not there because they don’t ask us to come.
Senator Martin: That’s very hard to believe that you have been excluded in that way.
You also mentioned in your testimony that the government needs to address the unique and specific needs of your members. Would you expand a little bit more on what those unique and specific needs are?
Ms. Augustine: If you don’t mind, I’ll take that on. We have a number of unique needs.
Our education is one. If you are not a status Indian, according to government, there is no education funding.
If you don’t live on a community or a created Indian Act reserve, for example, health is another issue. There is no transportation for our elders to get to doctors’ appointments. There are no programs available for diabetics, and lots of Indigenous peoples are diabetic. There are no mental health supports like our brothers and sisters have. There are a number of critical issues that affect our people.
Housing is another issue. There is no housing for any off-reserve Indigenous persons in this country. There used to be, years ago, but there is nothing.
Housing, health and education are critical issues that need to be dealt with. Our children, because they don’t hold a status card, or even if they do, sometimes can’t get funding for their education. I find that very disheartening.
For example, my brother married a non-Indigenous woman. His wife became a status Indian and got her education. I had to work and fight as a waitress because my education wasn’t paid for because I married a non-Indigenous man. The discrepancies are there. There are a lot of critical issues that our people need and are excluded. Just because I chose to marry a non-Indigenous man at the time, I should not have been excluded, when my sister-in-law, who is not Indigenous, had all her education paid for. That’s unfair, although that has changed. But what about my granddaughter? She is a Mi’kmaw. She is not going to get the education or the health supports. She is not going to get any help for a house or for housing.
So, yes, there are a lot of critical issues. There is no support for our people who are non-status or who are not on a reservation.
Senator Martin: It is quite a list.
Ms. Augustine: It is.
Senator Martin: And very concerning. Does CAP receive some funding as an organization?
Ms. Augustine: For those issues?
Senator Martin: Just in general.
Ms. Augustine: Not for housing, not for education.
Senator Martin: As an organization, do you apply for funding?
Ms. Augustine: Very little, barely enough, and if it wasn’t for monies for research or stuff like that, CAP would have nothing. They take a bit of administration to keep us going. When you’re left out and there’s no money coming, how are you supposed to pursue a lot of this? That’s a lot of the issues the Congress and its affiliates are having.
Remember, CAP, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, is our national organization. My organization works with the grassroots people. I know the one who knows the issues on the ground and what they’re facing. I look to our national organization to help us to meet with the different ministers. When you have ministers or departments that don’t want to recognize us as Indigenous peoples because we don’t fall within what they call section 35 rights holders, I have a big issue with that. I’ll stop there because I’m sure we could get into that a little further.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
The Chair: National Chief, do you have anything to add?
Mr. St. Pierre: Just on what Lorraine has spoken about, years ago, when I first joined CAP, a few years back, the theme was the “forgotten people.” It seemed like it was changing a little bit, but, all of a sudden, we’re still the forgotten people.
I don’t care about myself. I’m 67 years old — now the world knows how old I am — but it’s my grandchildren, and not just my grandchildren. All our members are part of my family. That’s just the way I am. I have raised outside kids that come into my home. Some of them were native and some weren’t. That’s who I’m worried about; I’m worried about our youth. We sit back and look at the youth, and we say, oh, the gangs and this and that. Well, some of those kids wanted to go to school, but they couldn’t because the funding is not there. Mom and dad didn’t have the money to do it. Some moms and dads mortgage their houses two or three times. They go after the OSAP money, the Ontario Student Assistance Program. They go to school at a later age. Let’s say they’re out of school by the age of 20, and by the time they’re 50, they’re just finishing paying off their OSAP loan. It’s not fair to those kids. They work hard. They’re our next generation. They’re going to fall into our steps and move forward.
Fifty years ago, we were fighting about the same thing. Fifty years ago, this is what we were fighting about, and we’re still fighting the government to treat us equally. We’re not asking to go over the top. We want to be on a level playing field with everybody else.
The Chair: Thank you, National Chief.
Senator Omidvar: I am not a regular member of this committee, rather an itinerant one, so if I display any lack of depth of knowledge, please put that down to that fact that I’m not a regular on this committee.
Both of you have noted your deeply felt exclusion from engagement with the government. I’m sure you have made representation to the government to be included. What is their response to you on being included in whatever programs and funding they have?
Perhaps let’s start with this. I’m sure the other organizations — the AFN and the ITK — feel for your exclusion, too. How have they helped you to be included?
Mr. St. Pierre: I’ve set up meetings to meet with each and every one of them, and they won’t meet with us. I was asked during the first year I was in office. They asked me; I thought about it. So I got my policy people in my office to write these guys a letter. Let’s get a meeting going. No response.
Senator Omidvar: And from the government?
Mr. St. Pierre: I don’t know how many letters we sent to Mr. Trudeau, and he won’t even talk to us. I went to functions where he is there, and he’ll shake my hand, and he’ll say, “Elmer, you’re working with CIRNAC. Keep up the good work.” That’s not what I want. I want to find out why we’re not being included, and he is the only man that can do that. Yet, we cannot get a meeting with him. Sure, we can meet with CIRNAC and ISC, but they have to go up the hill to get what we are asking for. No matter what we’ve asked for, we never got it.
Ms. Augustine: I’ll give you an example of one of the ways that we’re excluded. The Congress of Aboriginal People signed a political accord to work in good faith and to have some joint priorities. I sit on the negotiating team for the political accord team with the federal government. We have been at that now for five years. I had mentioned — I say this to the ministers, and I say this to the deputy ministers — CAP is really getting tired of the lip service. In those meetings, they tell us, “We’re going to move forward, and we’ll get these tables together.” We’ve been at these tables, like I said, for over five years. There’s no policy development done. We’re still excluded. They come across like they want to help, but if they were sincere in working with the Congress, I think we should have been a lot further than where we are today after five years of signing a political accord and having some joint priorities together. Are they being sincere? Maybe. But if I was sincere in working with my people, I’d make sure that I wasn’t five years telling them I’m going to do this and that. I would have been working at it.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for being here. You’re educating me on so many issues.
Ms. Augustine, you’re in Nova Scotia; correct? Tell me a little bit about Atlantic Canada and where you’re situated and some of the communities there. You are saying some are reserve and some are off reserve. Can you tell me a little bit more about that?
Ms. Augustine: Certainly.
At the Native Council of Nova Scotia, which is what I represent, we work with those who are non-status and those who are status but do not live on the reserve. They come to my organization for help. We try to provide employment and training for them, which is something that we negotiated for. I’m trying to provide some programs and services because, once you leave the reserve, sometimes you can’t get help when you go back to your community, so we are there to try and pick up the pieces and find some programming.
My communities are spread throughout the province. I’m located in Truro. In order to ensure that my constituency is helped, I have eight different offices throughout the province. That’s all funded by different programs, administration, and that’s the only thing — I don’t get any additional funding for my offices. I don’t get any kind of funding for being in an organization. I do get a little bit of BOC, or basic organizational capacity, funding. I think it’s $260,000 a year to run my organization, and I know that, in fact, some reserves get up to $2 million and only have about 120 members. There is quite that discrepancy.
My organization is there to advocate n behalf of and to ensure that our rights are recognized as Indigenous peoples. When someone tells me, “You’re not Indigenous,” or “You’re not a section 35 rights holder,” I tend to get pretty upset because my great-grandfather signed the 1752 treaty.
Senator Hartling: From your experience and from those people you are meeting, how many of those people would have relatives like your granddaughter who would have that problem? Is it a common issue?
Ms. Augustine: Very common.
Senator Hartling: Do you have numbers on that?
Ms. Augustine: No. I have a constituency that I work with, the whole province. Now, remember, back in the day, it was not a good thing to be an Indian. A lot of people would not admit who they were or who their family was due to the discrimination. Unfortunately, with my looks, I couldn’t hide it. The racism is out there, even systemic racism that we still face with our own brothers and sisters. It’s not created by them. It’s created by the way the government has divided and conquered us. Until that changes and until this government recognizes who we are and that we’re not a fly-by-night group — my organization has been around for almost 50 years, and the Congress has been around for over 50 years. They were the first organization to start. The Assembly of First Nations was part of the Native Council of Canada, as was the Métis National Council. I have been around a long time, too, with the organization, so I know the history, and I know where we came from. We had a voice, because we were the forgotten people. That still stands today, after 50 years. It’s kind of sad.
Senator Hartling: It’s hard, I’m sure. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate it.
Ms. Augustine: No problem.
Senator Patterson: I would just like to mention to National Chief St. Pierre that our committee will be studying the TRC bill, and we will, I can almost say for sure, welcome you to be a witness. Maybe this will be an opportunity for us to give you the recognition that you have so eloquently described you haven’t received from Canada, at least in this one important area.
I want to ask a bit more about the political accord. Ms. Augustine, you are very familiar with it. If we’re going to try and help you to fix these problems that you so eloquently described of basically being discriminated against, even within the Indigenous peoples of Canada, I would have thought the political accord would be the vehicle. Is that what we should be tackling when we look at the failure to fulfill the promise of the Daniels case? Does it have potential? Why is it taking so long?
Ms. Augustine: I think the reason it’s taking so long is that the federal government, at least from CIRNAC’s perspective, has taken on to work with us, but it’s also other departments that need an education on who the non-status and the off-reserve people really are. A lot of the different ministers and different departments, and even the Department of Justice, for example, have a really hard time accepting Daniels. There has been no movement because of Daniels. You have to remember that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples — and I was one of the original signatories to the Daniels case — was there for the non-status and the Métis. When the Daniels decision came down, the federal government probably found it easier to say, “Well, we’ll work with the Métis,” leaving out the non-status. The Department of Justice still refuses to move on the Daniels decision, which is a Supreme Court decision, the highest court in our country, and still refuses to acknowledge that we are.
One of the things that the Daniels decision says is that the non-status and Métis are Indians. Now, a lot of people don’t like the word “Indian,” but our Constitution, under section 35, is clear: “Aboriginal peoples” means Indian, Inuit and Métis. It does not say “First Nations.” It doesn’t say that. I have noticed in a lot of government sites that “Aboriginal people” and “section 35 rights holders” means First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I continue to say, as a Canadian, as an Indigenous person of this country, that I was not asked or talked to about the constitutional change. It hasn’t been changed. Section 35 has not been changed. I have a big issue with it when they start using the term “First Nations, Inuit and Métis.” That’s where the distinction base is coming from, and that’s the excuse they use. A distinction base means First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I’m a First Nations, but the grammar “First Nation” also means a band or a reserve. That’s how we’re being left out through the distinction based.
Senator Patterson: Yet, Harry Daniels and James Sinclair — I was at those meetings — had a very strong voice at the meetings to repatriate the constitutional —
Ms. Augustine: Absolutely. I was at the constitutional talks. Harry Daniels and Jim Sinclair were both leaders of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It’s so sad that their legacy is not being held up, what they fought so hard to do. It’s disheartening that we’re left out.
Senator Patterson: As I understand it, even with the other Métis organizations in Canada — I’m not saying you are included — there seems to be a division within the Métis of the MNC and the other organization. Does that complicate things for you? I’m wondering out loud whether you have some common cause with them, and it’s unfortunate that there is fragmentation. Do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Augustine: I can’t comment on that. When you are talking about Métis, for the Government of Canada, obviously, it’s the Métis National Council, which represents the Western provinces. When it comes to Métis people, there are Métis that don’t fall under the Red River Valley. You have Métis in different provinces. What “Métis” means, actually, is “mixed blood.” A non-status Indian is a mixed blood.
When this happened, the Métis National Council jumped on the Daniels case. Why they split, I’m not sure. It doesn’t affect us because we were never part of that. We were excluded from that even though we represent some Métis in some areas. They don’t have a voice. Unless you live in the Red River, then you’re not considered a Métis. That conflict that’s happening within the Métis National Council doesn’t affect us in that perspective. It affects our Métis people across the country who identify themselves as Métis rather than non-status.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Ms. Augustine: You’re welcome.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank National Chief St. Pierre for coming, and President Chief Augustine for joining us this evening as well. We really appreciate your testimony.
We will now switch gears and resume our study into the federal implementation of the Cannabis Act as it relates to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Please note that Malcolm Ranta, Executive Director of the Ilisaqsivik Society, is no longer able to join us for this panel. He will be rescheduled at a later date.
On the second panel, we will hear, from Behdzi Ahda First Nation, Chief Wilbert Kochon; and Nick Leeson, legal counsel; and, from the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director.
Wela’lin, thank you, to both our witnesses for being here. You will each have approximately five minutes to make opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Due to time constraints, please keep your exchanges brief and precise. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will hold up this sign when there is one minute left on your allocated time.
I now invite Chief Kochon to begin his remarks.
Wilbert Kochon, Chief, Behdzi Ahda First Nation: Good evening. I just came in last night. Last time, we tried to do it virtually, and it didn’t work, so here I am in person. It is nice to meet you, senators. Thank you for allowing me to do my presentation. I have a written presentation, and I will try to read it as fast I can. I hope you can keep up.
The Chair: You have five minutes.
Mr. Kochon: Five minutes? Wow. Okay. I will start right now.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and other honourable members of the committee. I am the Chief of the Behdzi Ahda First Nation. I represent the Dehla Got’ine from the community of Colville Lake. The Dehla Got’ine are Dene people traditionally occupying the Lower Mackenzie Valley of the Northwest Territories. I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from Denendeh, which is also Treaty 11 territory. Our history on these lands dates back to time immemorial, beyond the reach of memory or record. We are the first inhabitants of these lands. This must be kept in mind when discussing issues concerning the inherent and unalienable right to self-governance held by all self-determining peoples.
To begin, I want to thank you for inviting me to participate on behalf of the Dehla Got’ine in studying the Cannabis Act and how it affects Indigenous peoples, and in particular, regarding our inherent right and the power to pass laws regulating the use, production, and distribution of cannabis on behalf of the Dehla Got’ine. As we will discuss, cannabis legalization and regulation are critically linked to broader issues, including self-determination and reconciliation. These affect the future of our community.
The Cannabis Act is falling short in recognizing Indigenous rights. Cannabis was made legal in Canada in 2018 with the passage of the Cannabis Act. This has changed many things. It also kept many things the same. It failed to recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. By denying Indigenous peoples and our governments the right to decide how the new law should apply in our communities, it failed to uphold our rights.
The act merely includes opportunities for review of the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, but it does not make space for Indigenous governments to protect our communities. For instance, under the act, provincial and territorial governments can issue licenses for cannabis use, including how it is grown, sold and distributed. Indigenous governments cannot. Once again, Indigenous people are afterthoughts. The act also permits provincial and territorial governments to authorize certain activities and oversee retail distribution and the sale of cannabis in their jurisdictions, but it recognizes no similar ability for Indigenous governments. The decision to leave out Indigenous governments dishonours our government-to-government relationship. It brings to mind colonial laws and ways of doing things, which have no place in the era of reconciliation. No principled justification was provided for giving these regulatory powers over cannabis activities to provincial governments but not to Indigenous governments.
There are gaps between cannabis regulation and standards for inherent rights. Fortunately, fixing these gaps in the legislative framework need not be a difficult task, that is, it wouldn’t take much work to formally recognize Indigenous rights in this area. Small amendments to the legislative framework and/or government mandates could easily recognize Indigenous governments as having jurisdiction to regulate cannabis for medical and recreational use in our communities. For example, the act could be amended to include references to Indigenous governments where lawmaking and regulatory powers are given to provincial governments. This would include amendments to section 69 of the act. This would be done by adding references to Indigenous laws next to references to provincial laws. This change would be easy to make and should have been provided at the outset.
Even though the act has only been around for four years, it is already outdated. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples commits Canada to take all measures necessary to ensure that all laws, including the Cannabis Act, reflect the principles and rights set out in UNDRIP, including the right to self-determination, while also respecting Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by the Constitution. This means all federal law, mandates and policies — old and new — must be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that they comply with UNDRIP. Simply put, the act is not in line with UNDRIP. In order for it to become so, the act should be amended to give First Nations space to control the licensing, marketing, sale and distribution of cannabis in their communities.
Turning to cannabis regulation and the Dehlà Got’ine self-government, this is the context in which we are currently negotiating our modern, non-treaty self-government agreement in trilateral negotiations with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Those negotiations are motivated by the understanding that our inherent right to govern ourselves will be respected and that our Indigenous lawmaking powers will be recognized. Meeting that requirement means having an agreement that keeps pace with the current understanding of our rights. This includes pushing beyond what the Cannabis Act allows. There should be scope within our agreement to regulate the production and sale of cannabis products, not merely the allowance for its prohibition. Anything less would fail to offer sufficient scope for making laws tailored to our specific needs.
Right now, our focus is on preventing the proliferation of unwanted cannabis products in our community, but it does not end there. We should have the full range of abilities that the provinces and territories have to work with Canada to decide whether and how the production, distribution and enforcement of cannabis can be done in our community.
In summary, we applaud the Senate’s commitment to reviewing the approach taken on the cannabis file to better incorporate the interests and rights of Indigenous peoples. Overall, we see this review to be a small part of a broader, long-term, nation-to-nation discussion on the future direction of both the act and complementary federal legislation and approaches to Indigenous self-governance more broadly. We must ensure that the legislative approach put forward enables us to live side by side and build a future of prosperity together, while respecting our spheres of authority and properly accommodating distinctions-based governance structures. I want to encourage you to make changes to the act and its regulations to allow Indigenous jurisdiction over cannabis activities to be fully recognized so that we can decide what legalization means in our communities.
We appreciate you listening to us this evening, and we’re ready to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. I have a lawyer on the line to assist.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Kochon. You did a great job.
Now I invite Mr. Busch to give his opening remarks.
Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director, First Nations Chiefs of Police Association: Thank you for inviting me today. I consider it an honour and a privilege to be here before you. I appear before you as the Executive Director of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association. I am of Sioux ancestry, and my traditional homeland is the Kahkewistahaw First Nation near Broadview, Saskatchewan.
About myself, I started my career in policing back in 1978 when I became a band constable at a small community in northern Manitoba, South Indian Lake — O-Pipon-Na-Piwin it’s called. I did that for two years, and then I joined the RCMP as a native special constable. Five years later, I went back to training, and after six months in Regina, I became a full constable with the RCMP. I worked in northern Manitoba and then was transferred to Winnipeg where I worked in drug enforcement and drug intelligence. I was then transferred to become an instructor at the RCMP training academy in Regina.
In 1999, I was commissioned to the rank of inspector with the RCMP and moved to Ottawa, where I was put in charge of the national Aboriginal policing branch. Following that, I became a security liaison officer for Governors General Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean and was their travel officer for three and a half years.
My last RCMP posting was at the Canadian Police College, where I was the Director in charge of the Professional Development Centre for Indigenous Policing, and then the last few years I was in charge of the Police Leadership Centre at the Canadian Police College.
In 2014, I retired and became the Chief of Police at a small First Nations police service in Saskatchewan, the File Hills First Nations Police Service, and as the chief, I sat on the executive of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association. I retired from the File Hills Police last New Year’s Eve and, four days later, I was asked to become the Executive Director of the FNCPA, so my retirement plans lasted four days. I asked my wife, “Should I take the job?” She said, “Yes. Get out of here. Do something.” She was already getting tired of me.
The First Nations Chiefs of Police Association was established as a not-for-profit organization in January 1993, shortly after the implementation of the First Nations Policing Program that the federal government put into place. The purpose of the FNCPA is to serve First Nations police services and First Nations territories across Canada by facilitating the highest level of professionalism and accountability in a manner that reflects the unique cultures, constitutional status, social circumstances, traditions and aspirations of First Nations peoples in Canada.
We operate with funding from the federal government. Some revenues are raised through member fees and the FNCPA’s national conference. The FNCPA has also received project funding on specific projects, one being opioid awareness and cannabis awareness when the act came in. We concentrated mostly on the impact it would have on impaired driving and did a program directed at youth across the country. We are a not-for-profit status organization.
Currently, there are 36 self-administered First Nations police services across Canada, all but six of these being in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The remaining six are in the Western provinces. These police services are very diverse in many areas in things such as their geographic location, urban, rural, the remoteness, their jurisdictional boundaries, the size and the population that they serve. They are diverse in the size of their police services. They are diverse in the way their services are offered and available. There is diversity in economic support. Some are very remote, isolated communities; others border on major cities and have a lot more amenities. In particular, in Tsuut’ina, where I was going to talk to you a few weeks ago, they have a casino and they have a Costco. They are quite different than a lot of the reserves that we have in more isolated areas. The governance structures are different. The infrastructure is different. The relationships that they have with the provinces are varied as well.
There is a lot of diversity, and because of this diversity it is somewhat difficult to achieve an absolute consensus on most issues, such as the implementation of the Cannabis Act. I can, however, share some comment, opinions and observations from the First Nations chiefs of police that I heard expressed during consultations in my preparation for this appearance and also from my own personal experience as a First Nations chief of police.
First Nations police services report low enforcement of cannabis laws and regulations in their territories. One reason for that is there is a shortage of trained drug recognition experts in First Nations policing, and geographically, this often impacts the availability of the trained DREs. While this training is offered, the courses are expensive and the seats are often taken up by larger mainstream police services. Some of our First Nations services complain of the availability to do these courses is not there. Drug impaired driving cases often also involve alcohol use and often investigators go to the alcohol-impaired driving evidence in order to proceed.
First Nations police services report what appears to be increased cannabis use and feel some of this perception may be due to people using cannabis more openly in the community. They feel now that it is legal that they are not as secretive about its use, and so it appears that there is more, and there may be more. First Nations police services report that illicit cannabis is still readily available in most communities within their jurisdictions. First Nations police services report an apparent increase in the cannabis usage among youth, and some relate that youth as young as 10 have access to, in particular, edibles and have brought them to schools.
Eighty per cent of First Nations police services report significant organized crime problems across Canada within their jurisdictions — gang problems, drug problems and problems with human trafficking. Eighty per cent of First Nations police services also report that they rely on outside agencies for support services and major crime investigation.
Staff shortages are a major issue with self-administered First Nations police services across Canada, and a recent survey revealed that, on average, First Nations police services are four bodies short, and that is short of positions that are already funded. That correlates to 144 vacancies across the country, which really impacts the service that is provided and the remaining police officers in terms of the time that they have to work, the overtime and the stress that they are under. They say this impacts the ability to adequately concentrate on cannabis-related drug enforcement. Many of their communities are more inundated with more serious drug issues, such as fentanyl, opioids and crystal meth amphetamines, and they take priority because they cause death. To quote one of the chiefs of police here in Ontario:
FN services don’t have the resources to deal with cannabis when opioids have infested the communities and that becomes the priority.
Twenty per cent of First Nations police services report having no interaction with provincial or federal criminal intelligence agencies. This is significant because, as we know, crime is very mobile. Often the drug problem in a community is coming from somewhere else, and the police services have to be able to work together in order to stem the flow and adequately enforce drug laws. One fifth of our police services really have nothing to do with the larger effort within the province, and that is an issue.
Some First Nations police services report that illegal dispensaries operate on their territories, and some of them complain that these often become the targets of armed robberies and break-ins.
Many First Nations police chiefs feel that cannabis, whether legal or illegal, is still an entry-level drug in their communities, and some say this has been exacerbated by drug dealers lacing cannabis with other drug additives to make it more attractive or potent.
Many First Nations police chiefs are of the opinion that while they support the decriminalization of cannabis, the legalization may not have had the impact that the lawmakers had intended or predicted.
Many First Nations police chiefs agree with the findings in the report titled Summary from engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples: The Cannabis Act and its impacts published by Health Canada in October 2022. It states:
The lack of enforcement of criminal prohibitions in the Cannabis Act within many First Nation communities due to the sensitive relationship between First Nations and Canadian law enforcement. This can lead to tension between police and the community around enforcement activities, including differences between Chief and Council and police as to what is an “illicit” activity, and whether First Nation or federal/provincial/territorial laws should be enforced
As a result, in many communities, there are increased opportunities for organized criminal activity, health risks due to consumption of untested, illicit products, and a growing dissatisfaction with the application of the Act. In some communities, the presence of illicit operations results in outside traffic and unwanted visitors coming into the community looking to buy illicit cannabis products.
I can speak a little bit to some of the tensions. One of our communities in Saskatchewan where I was the chief of police opened an unlicensed dispensary and were insisting on their rights towards self-determination and self-governance. The chief of the band called me as the chief of the police and asked, “We’re having a grand opening. Can you come over?” And I said I would, but when I got there, two or three news outlets are there with their cameras. I’m in the back with my uniform. I stood in the back of the crowd. Halfway through this, the chief says, “Now we would like a few words from the chief of police.” Now I’m up in front, and I know that my authority as chief of police comes through the provincial police act, and the Saskatchewan Police Commission has the power to remove me as the chief of police, and I know that there is some conflict between the province and some of the reserves about that. I just kept my remarks short and congratulated the community on economic development and things like that. It never came back to get me, but there is that ongoing tension sometimes.
Thank you very much for listening. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Busch.
Before we open the floor for questions, I remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when you do so.
I will start with the first question for Chief Kochon. What has been the impact of cannabis legalization on the social and economic well-being of your community members, and have you received sufficient support from the federal government?
Mr. Kochon: Not really. I have got a little story about when they first starting regulating cannabis up in the Sahtu, where there were five communities. The government gave us a recommendation, and the chief wanted to open the store. They had the building to sell cannabis so they could use the money to educate more of our people about cannabis and even trying to educate more on it, for more young people. A lot of young people were affected by it when they were young. It really affected them. Now they are in some place in Vancouver where they are being treated because they lost a lot of their brains and smoked a lot when they were young. We have a couple of them there, maybe three of them. It really affected young people, and especially the kids.
A lot of drug dealers really do not care who they sell to. And it really impacts, and you can really see it. It seems that they have more rights than our people. We tried everything to avoid it and even tried to ban them, but that was the Charter of Rights. Even the cannabis is not only cannabis now. Crack. It seems the cannabis is not enough, and you see a lot of that. The kids are getting into it.
We’re a small community, but it really impacted a lot of the families. Now a lot of young people don’t want to work. There are a lot of jobs. We have a lot of jobs, and we created a lot of jobs, but they don’t want to make honest money. There is a lot of impact in the whole region, but even in just that small community itself. Winter is coming up again, and that is when it is worse.
Right now, even the airlines are bringing it in through the mail. We are trying to work with the RCMP, but their hands are tied because of certain laws, I guess. It seems like they cannot bust the drug dealers or something. They always find a way to bring it into the communities. It’s sad to see a lot of young people who want to work and have the ability to work. It’s not only there, but everywhere in the five communities.
The Chair: Lots of negative impacts.
Mr. Kochon: Does that answer your question?
The Chair: Yes, very well. Thank you very much.
Senator Martin: First of all, thank you very much for your testimonies. You highlighted some of the concerns that I know I felt as a legislator when we were looking at the Cannabis Act about whether we were doing it too hastily, too quickly, because there were some warnings and advice from other jurisdictions that we should take our time.
Mr. Busch, how did the consultations work prior to the Cannabis Act? Because, obviously, enforcement would be one of the most important pillars to ensure that the legalization would not impact as much as it has. Would you talk about the consultation process at the time when you may have been with your organization and whether there was adequate consultation before the Cannabis Act was implemented?
Mr. Busch: I don’t recall any consultation with our organization on that. I do know that, through some of the provincial chiefs of police associations, there was some dialogue that went back and forth. Some of our police services are members of their provincial agencies as well. We got the odd media inquiry as to what our feeling was, but, again, we’re representing such a diverse number of police services. I can’t even say there was a consultation that I was aware of with the chiefs of police.
Senator Martin: You are now having to enforce challenges that differ from community to community. We are reviewing it, but you have highlighted a lot of issues that your members have given to you prior to your coming to this committee in your consultation with them. What are some of the remedies or some of the solutions to address these issues that you have given us today?
Mr. Busch: I don’t know if there is an easy answer to that. I do think that the First Nations police services could certainly benefit from more training on the act and in the enforcement of the act. Again, training has always been kind of a sensitive spot with us, because often we’re just allocated seats in mainstream police services. If they have an extra seat, then sometimes they’ll invite us to sit there. The chiefs of police did complain and said they were promised all kinds of training and it never showed up. As a result, I don’t think there has been a lot of concentration on the enforcement of the Cannabis Act. Again, the chiefs did say that they have bigger problems with the harder drugs.
Senator Martin: I heard you mention that the cannabis has been laced with other drugs, so that’s going to be an added issue.
Mr. Busch: It certainly is an issue because it’s dangerous, and I think it exacerbates the issue of an entry-level drug that people would come to.
First Nations police services have to be included in the larger picture with mainstream policing in Canada. They have to sit on some of these intelligence committees. They have to learn how to share intelligence. Again, it all comes back to the training they have. A lot of our police services were originally formed and considered to be an enhancement to mainstream policing and were just kind of an add-on, whereas over the years, since the early 1990s, our police services have become more self-sufficient and the demands on them have grown, and the training demands have grown as well. When a First Nations police service takes over, the other police service that was there tends to move away and concentrate their resources somewhere else. I think some of the agencies have to better reflect Indigenous culture as well to be more inclusive with First Nations in their involvement with intelligence and other agencies.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for helping us understand some of the issues that are happening in the communities.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank both witnesses.
Mr. Busch, you have done some good work preparing for this presentation and consulting with your colleagues. Thank you very much for that.
Chief Kochon, I want to thank you for the long journey. I had the privilege of being in Colville Lake many times, including back in the days of Father Brown, and I know it’s an isolated place and a long journey. Thank you very much for being here with us when technical problems prevented you.
You made a very good case for an issue our committee wants to study, and that is the authority of local governments like yours to, as you put it, perhaps educate people, but also prevent proliferation of unwanted products. I would like to ask, first of all, has your band council passed laws or tried to pass laws about cannabis?
Mr. Kochon: Thank you. I haven’t talked to you in a long time since you were in the government.
We never really tried to pass laws, but we’re trying to do something for our self-government in the future, where we can pass certain laws. To tell you the truth, the chiefs have tried to get into the business of selling marijuana, so that way they can control who they sell to. That’s why we’re interested in it. But right away, government came back and said, “We’re using the liquor laws. We’re going to sell it under the liquor policy.” Then right away, you run into problems. There are a lot of problems in there. Even a kid can get five grams. That’s a lot for a kid. Under the liquor act, you can’t buy liquor until you are 19. Then for an adult, it’s 30 grams, and that’s quite a bit. There are a lot of things that don’t really fit really well with us, but we want to do something with it in our government once we start our government. That’s the reason why we put it in here.
Senator Patterson: I understand you to say that the act can and should be amended? I wonder if you could give us a little more detail on that. I know your legal counsel is also with you virtually. Maybe one of you could elaborate on the possibility of amending the act.
Mr. Kochon: Nick, do you want to jump in?
Nick Leeson, Legal Counsel, Behdzi Ahda First Nation: Yes, I’m happy to do so.
Before I commence on that, I’ll just make sure that everything is connecting well. I do wish that I could be with all of you in person. On that note, I would just like to start by recognizing that I’m speaking to you from the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples as well, namely, those of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. I’m calling you today from Vancouver. I’m thankful to do so because part of the reason I’m here and couldn’t be with you all in Ottawa is I’m here for family reasons and some health concerns with my three-year-old daughter.
I do wish I could be with all of you in person because it’s been far too many days since we have been able to all meet on a regular basis in person rather than virtually. I would also like to be there because it would be nice if I could be there with Chief Kochon, although I see that the weather followed him down from Sahtu so hopefully that makes him feel more at home there in Ottawa with all of you with the winter finally arriving. It hasn’t quite made its way to the West Coast. I do hope that that makes it feel more at home for Chief Kochon because we couldn’t do this virtually.
I want to start by asking you to think of that word, “home,” and what that means and what it requires of us here in Canada, especially from people like me, settlers. I want to be clear that I’m just a visitor here, and not just because I’m literally a resident right now for medical reasons in British Columbia, even though my long-time home before that and where it really feels like home is Denendeh, where I lived for more than a decade in Yellowknife, namely, Chief Drygeese’s territory, home of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation. But even before that, when I was born there in Ontario, I was born on the land of Indigenous peoples. I was raised on the traditional territories of the Bkejwanong peoples, also known as Walpole Island First Nation.
I point all that out because we call this place today Canada, and we have done so for the last 150 years or so, but for tens of thousands of years it was known by past, present and future regional caretakers and current caretakers as Turtle Island. Caretakers on these lands since time immemorial. We use that phrase a lot. To make sure we have meaning behind that phrase, when we talk about items like we’re talking about today, we think about the first occupants of these lands and what that means, not just to us but what it means to First Peoples. I think if we do that, these land acknowledgements will actually move us forward in a way that’s more than merely performative but leads to substantive and transformative change in our perspectives.
I think that brings us to the conversation that Senator Patterson just brought forward, which is the conversation about the Cannabis Act and associated jurisdictional authorities that that demands if we are truly respecting the lands that we are on. We are all treaty peoples, after all. There are inherent rights that go with the original occupants of the lands, and that means that the legislation that Canada passes needs to recognize and affirm that. That means creating the space for jurisdiction and authority of Indigenous peoples to live without control or delegation by another government.
In terms of the quick, easy changes to the Cannabis Act and the gap that it had in recognizing Indigenous rights, I know Chief Kochon had a PowerPoint presentation that went into the specifics. I’m not going to talk about the specific provisions that could be changed, although I’m happy to if there are follow-up questions. But the short of it is it’s a very simple amendment to the legislation that where the legislation already contains room to recognize provincial governments in that intergovernmental cooperation, that provincial governments can enact laws under their own jurisdiction within certain standards and parameters that are set by the federal government, that the —
The Chair: Mr. Leeson, we’re going to get you to wrap up your answer.
Mr. Leeson: I will wrap up. The same provisions that provided that room and space for provincial governments could have easily created that space for Indigenous governments simply by adding Indigenous laws and Indigenous governments and/or organizations alongside the references to provincial jurisdiction. So a very simple amendment. The other positive with that is that for those amendments, even though they weren’t made yesterday, there is nothing to prevent them from very easily being made tomorrow. So a quick fix.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leeson, for that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both of you for being with us today and helping us understand the impact of cannabis legislation on your communities.
I think you have answered this question in some part already. I was very new in the Senate when the cannabis legislation was passed, but I remember it vividly. One of the objectives of the legislation was to reduce cannabis-related crime and reduce the number of individuals who interacted with the police forces because of cannabis. Can you tell me whether that objective has been achieved in your communities? Yes or no?
Mr. Busch: No.
Mr. Kochon: No.
Senator Omidvar: Do you have any data to back that up?
Mr. Busch: Just the comments from the chiefs, each looking at their own jurisdiction, so no empirical data. They say that the illicit marijuana market is still alive and well. Illegal marijuana is still readily available in the community. Often it undercuts the dispensary stuff in price, and there is the hazard that often it is cut with stronger drugs to make it more attractive to some drug users.
Mr. Kochon: I’m going to tell a story. That way, it will stick in your head.
When a lot of the young men are on the land hunting and doing work, they are stoned. I have never seen that before. It’s dangerous because they are high and are using a rifle. You really have to watch them. We don’t send young kids out with them because we’re scared for their safety. I don’t know how much proof you need, but every one of those people never went out until they had a smoke. You can smell it every morning. You’re not allowed to say anything about it. We raised concerns about it. The safety of our kids was more important to us, so we didn’t send them out. We never really record it, but we always mentioned it to the law. But at a certain point, they don’t pass. But they work with us pretty well, the RCMP. I work with the detachment from Yellowknife, and we work pretty well together. So that was a sad thing to see.
Senator Omidvar: One of the other objectives of the legislation — not high in priority, but still — was to develop a new stream of revenue. The Government of Canada, at that point, said that $8 billion of revenue would be generated through the legal sale of cannabis. Could you tell us if any legal revenue has been generated from the sale of cannabis and has lifted the community economically?
Mr. Busch: I do know in some of the communities where I work as the chief of police, where they have opened dispensaries, that there has been a money stream coming to the band. It’s a profitable business, but I don’t think they are overwhelmed with money from it because there is just too much competition from illegal drug dealers.
It was strange. For years, nobody in the communities wanted to talk to the police about who was using drugs or anything like that, but once the dispensary was opened up by the chief and council, then it was them calling the chief and informing on the illegal drug dealers, not because they objected to what they were doing, necessarily, but because they were cutting into their business. That was a strange twist to that.
Senator Omidvar: Back to the data question, do you know if any research has been commissioned, academic or otherwise, to determine the decline or not of cannabis-related crime in your communities?
Mr. Kochon: They always find ways to sell cannabis, and there are certain people that are making a lot of money with it. There is really nothing we can do about it because it’s legalized. They always find a way. No matter what you do, no matter how you work with the law, they always find a way. There are certain people that have lots of money.
One thing was that they used to use our co-op to launder money. Now we work with the co-op and tell them not to let anyone come in with a bunch of cash and put money in the store and then through their banks. That’s one thing we stopped. That’s how we know the records. There is a record there. I know there is a record there. I can go to the co-op, and if they allow me to check all the records, you’ll see.
These people don’t work, but where did they get all the money from?
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here, both of you. It’s a very interesting conversation.
Some witnesses have told us that because cannabis became legalized, there has been less use of alcohol. I’m wondering what your experience has been and if you have any data on that.
Mr. Busch: I’m not aware of any data on that. From my own personal observations, alcohol still is a major issue in a lot of our communities. From a personal perspective, I haven’t noticed a decline in alcohol use. I know the two drugs are often used in concert with one another.
Senator Hartling: You’re saying you haven’t seen a change in that at all?
Mr. Busch: I haven’t noticed any change.
Senator Hartling: I’m curious because some people told us that. I just wanted to verify. Maybe different places have different experiences. Thank you.
What about you?
Mr. Kochon: No, I’ve never really seen any changes. It’s more stoned people, but then there is the alcohol coming in quite a bit. There is nothing we can do about it. We try.
Senator Hartling: It makes it more complex with both?
Mr. Kochon: Well, it seems like it comes through the mail and all the records are in there. We tell the government and the police, but there is really nothing we can do about it unless we make a law to stop them. I don’t know. It must be good business. I’m not sure.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Busch, I have a question for you. How do the challenges First Nations communities face enforcing laws relating to cannabis differ based on the type of policing arrangement in place in the community?
Mr. Busch: There has always been a challenge with enforcement of First Nations laws because the police is only one aspect of the legal system. If the police were to enforce a First Nation law, the question is about the person they are charging and where do they go if they want to plead not guilty? If they are given a fine, who do they pay the fine to? The rest of the system in most places is not there. When the police go to enforce any First Nation law, it really raises an issue. Even with having someone removed from the community, where do you send them and what do you do with them? What are your authorities?
I know some of the acts that we had come up with. One of the communities did an anti-intoxicant act where they just wanted to ban alcohol and they wanted us to go into people’s houses if they were drinking there and haul them out. We said, well, first of all, there is the thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Usually when someone has had too much to drink, we want to take them home, not go in their house and take them out. It’s a very emotionally and politically charged issue for police. We always come back to the fact that if the rest of the pieces of the puzzle are not in place, that makes it really difficult for a lot of these laws to be enforced.
In terms of the drug laws and provincial regulations, those are also challenging without a real good relationship with the outside policing community, the different agencies that focus on those things. The sharing of intelligence and information would help that. Again, our police services are focused right now on the crisis they have with opioids and fentanyl and the harder drugs predominantly.
Senator Patterson: Chief Kochon, your premier is an Indigenous person. Your MLA is a Dene from Sahtu who is a cabinet minister. Have you tried to see if the government of the Northwest Territories would give you authority to regulate or open a store in your community?
Mr. Kochon: That was the old government when we did that, but these are new. We have been working pretty well with them, but we haven’t brought it up to them. I’m willing to bring it up to them and work with them, but it seems like the deputy has got more power than the ministers. No use talking to ministers when nothing is going to happen. What we always do is go right to the deputy ministers and all the bureaucrats, and then we start working with them. We worked with the justice department pretty well too. We’re trying the best we can to try and control what is coming into our community. We work with the premier pretty well, but I have to get everybody on side and then we’ll move something. If you don’t have everybody on side, someone inside the government that is not really listening to everybody, it will never work. The ministers really have to start working with the people and then using that information to change some of the things that are happening or the laws or the way it’s sold in our communities. We are going to look at it and, every little chance we get, we’ll go after it just to protect our kids. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank you for the PowerPoint presentation that you sent in. It does give us the information about what you recommended for changes to the act, so that’s appreciated.
Mr. Busch, you have really given us a very good picture and list of the shortcomings, challenges and frustrations of First Nations policing. We do understand that the current government is looking at new legislation respecting First Nations policing. I wonder, are you and your organization involved in that? Do you believe that changing the legislation has the potential to deal with some of the challenges and frustrations that you outlined for us that you folks are experiencing?
Mr. Busch: Yes, absolutely. We have been working with Public Safety Canada and the Assembly of First Nations on what they call the proposed central service legislation for a couple years now. When we talk about it being a central service, it could be that term is used to describe an organization that you don’t want to go on strike because the service they provide is critical and crucial, but what the First Nations police services mean by being considered essential services stems from being considered nonessential for a long period of time and as an add-on or enhancement to mainstream policing. We have grown well past that to where we are and want to be recognized as an integral part of Canada’s ongoing policing strategy, transforming that relationship from basically just being a program that’s funded on a one-, two- or three-year basis to something that is more permanent.
I’m happy to say that many of our funding agreements have been extended to eight or ten years, whereas before it was almost impossible to do any kind of meaningful strategic planning or recruit or hire people when you couldn’t really guarantee them categorically that you’ll have a job in one, two or three years with our organization. So that is a very positive change. In terms of how we are resourced and the services we provide, it will definitely enhance the self-administered First Nations police services’ ability to deliver the policing services that our communities need and demand from us and to actually expand beyond being just responders that are going from one call to the next, but also give us more ability to be proactive and work closer with our communities in terms of addressing — I would say some of the stuff we’re talking about are the symptoms of bigger and deeper and often historic issues that are impacting our communities. So I think it raises our capacity. It helps us in terms of recruitment and retention of employees and also in the expertise and training that would be available to us if we are considered essential.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that.
I know you are from Saskatchewan, and you talked about the big challenge of opiates and fentanyl. The country was horrified with the recent tragedy in your province, and we were told that opiates may have been a factor. Does this problem create violent crime? Is that the worst aspect of it?
Mr. Busch: We certainly have noticed in the last few years, since the proliferation of crystal methamphetamine, that the calls are getting wilder and crazier. We come across people who are right out of their minds because they are so high on this drug and have been going for days or even weeks without sleep. I’m not just talking about people in the community. We have people show up in our community that are from hundreds of miles away and that are sometimes armed or they are not where they are supposed to be. We quickly get to them, and often they perceive the police then as a threat to them. There can be some critical situations. The nature of crimes and the drug crimes we’re seeing are more volatile and dangerous for both the public and the police.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Chief Kochon, should cannabis stores on reserve be fully or partially owned by the bands to help offset the costs of mental health, addiction and policing, et cetera?
Mr. Kochon: Yes. That would help a lot, because they can control it more.
My community has no policing, and then we are the ones who are dealing with certain things. We put our lives on the line sometimes. We have to, because we have to protect our people, the vulnerable ones.
In the bigger communities, yes, if the chiefs or the leadership had a chance to sell it or had more control of it, then started building more education about it — we even had buildings ready. Those things never happened because a certain bureaucrat thought that we could not do it. We had everything ready. It would be nice to have the ability to do it ourselves so that we have control and then use the money to help our people.
The Chair: Does anyone have any further questions?
The time for this panel is complete. I remind witnesses that if you have any further written testimony that you wish to share with our committee, please submit it.
Senator Martin: Chief, you said you do not have any police. In such cases, what happens?
Mr. Kochon: I put my arm around them. No, just kidding. We have to call the police sometimes, but they do not show up for 12 hours, 10 hours. Some of our people have to stand up and try to be there to save people, or be there as kind of the police to make sure that everything is okay. We don’t have to do it but, as leadership, you don’t have a choice. So as I said, we’re putting ourselves on the line. When you call the police, sometimes there is a problem with the weather or the plane. The last time, it was 11 hours to come in for a guy walking around with a gun.
Senator Martin: This is very concerning.
Mr. Kochon: They woke me up. I went there, and I ended up taking the gun away. It was good. Those kinds of things happen. This person was on drugs too, and that was my brother too. We were lucky. He fired a couple of shots but nothing happened. We were fortunate that no one was killed. He even shot through the door where there was a big party, and nobody got hit. It was unbelievable. They were calling me. I said, “How come my phone kept ringing, kept ringing?” So I answered and then I ended up going there. I guess they took it away from him, and so I had to go there and grab it before somebody else grabs it.
Senator Martin: My goodness. Your leadership calls upon you to be in all kinds of positions. Thank you for your leadership, is what I want to say. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Busch?
Mr. Busch: We have also been working with Public Safety Canada in looking at the essential service legislation in terms of all the demands for new, self-administered police services where we’re hearing from communities, and also from tribal councils, and we’re trying to put together a criterion to determine what the best policing model would be to serve each of these communities. There certainly is not a one-size-fits-all for small, isolated communities because they are small and are geographically remote. You always have to consider the economics of policing and how much things cost. It is not a bottomless pit.
We are always talking about wanting to have safe homes and safe communities. I’m sad to say a lot of our communities do not have safe homes and aren’t safe. People barricade their door at night because of the drug dealers, the gangs and that type of issue. That is common across the country in Indigenous communities.
There may be different policing models that may serve communities better. A small community may not have police officers present in the community all the time. Maybe they will have a community safety officer there who would be in contact with the police so that at least there is some response to these issues to ensure that people are safe and secure as much as possible while the other resources that may be needed have time to arrive.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any further questions? I see none.
Again, I remind our witnesses that if you have any additional information that you would like to share with our committee, please provide it in writing by next week to our clerk, Andrea.
The time for this panel is now complete. Again, I express my gratitude to both of you for sharing your testimony with us tonight. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)