THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 28, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the government response, dated March 21, 2024, to the committee’s twelfth report (interim), entitled On the Outside Looking In: The Implementation of the Cannabis Act and its effects on Indigenous Peoples, tabled in the Senate on June 14, 2023, during the First Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament.
Senator Margo Greenwood (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table in front of you for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator Margo Greenwood. I am from British Columbia, and I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. In the absence of the chair, it is my honour to chair this very important meeting today with you.
I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper from Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Cornwall, Ontario, on traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of you, and thank you for being here. I also welcome all the people who are viewing from across Canada on Senate ParlVU.
We are meeting today to study the government response, dated March 21, 2024, to the committee’s twelfth report (interim), entitled On the Outside Looking In: The Implementation of the Cannabis Act and its effects on Indigenous Peoples, tabled in the Senate on June 14, 2023, during the First Session of the Forty‑fourth Parliament.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming at the table, from Indigenous Services Canada, Christopher Cornish, Director General, Economic and Business Opportunities, Lands and Economic Development; from the Department of Finance Canada, Lesley Taylor, Director General, Intergovernmental Tax Policy, Evaluation and Research Division; also from the Department of Finance Canada, Brent Almond, Senior Director, Indigenous Tax Policy; and from the Canada Revenue Agency, Darren Weiner, Director, Excise Duty Division.
Thank you all for joining us. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I will now invite Mr. Cornish to give his opening remarks, followed by Mr. Weiner. Mr. Cornish, you have the floor.
Christopher Cornish, Director General, Economic and Business Opportunities, Lands and Economic Development, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, senators, and thank you for the invitation to appear today.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the Senate committee report entitled On the Outside Looking In and the important questions it raises about how the implementation of the Cannabis Act is affecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
These questions speak to real issues: participation in the legal market, jurisdiction on-reserve, public health impacts and the ability of communities to enforce their own laws and priorities.
Since legalization in 2018, federal policy has been grounded in a public health and public safety framework. The work of Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, supports that approach in three areas: enabling economic participation where communities identify it as a priority, supporting community-led governance where applicable and contributing to community health and wellness responses.
On economic participation, ISC has adapted existing programming so that communities can access support if they choose to pursue cannabis-related development. Program terms and conditions under the Community Opportunity Readiness Program and the Lands and Economic Development Services Program have been updated so that cannabis-related projects can be considered under the program criteria.
Subsequently, ISC has provided approximately $4.5 million through these programs, supporting over 22 cannabis-related projects across Canada. Similarly, in British Columbia, through our Strategic Partnerships Initiative and a partnership with the Province of British Columbia and Health Canada, we have also invested an additional $2.5 million to support B.C. First Nations who wish to participate in the legal cannabis trade.
These projects demonstrate regional collaboration with provinces and territories to help communities navigate federal and provincial licensing requirements, as well as community-level investments in business planning, feasibility studies and the development, construction and expansion of licensed cannabis cultivation and retail operations, which can advance where partners work together.
Cannabis intersects with broader Indigenous governance and land management systems that shape economic decision making, including the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the First Nations Land Management Act.
Under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, over 370 First Nations have opted in: Approximately 150 exercise taxation powers, more than 200 have strengthened financial management systems and over 100 have accessed pooled borrowing. This reflects a gradual expansion of fiscal governance tools, with varying uptake depending on community capacity and priorities.
In parallel, 219 First Nations participate in the First Nations Land Management Act framework, enabling the development of land codes and greater authority over land use compared to the Indian Act. Implementation varies based on institutional readiness, regulatory coordination and local priorities.
In practical terms, these frameworks can support greater control over land use and economic activity, including cannabis-related decisions. However, they are not determinative on their own and do not replace federal or provincial regulatory requirements, enforcement considerations or access to capital and markets.
On public health and community wellness, ISC supports a continuum of Indigenous-led mental wellness services. This includes funding for 45 Indigenous-operated substance use treatment programs, as well as mobile crisis response teams and culturally grounded prevention, treatment and recovery services across the country.
Substance use, including cannabis, must be understood within broader patterns of polysubstance use that many communities are addressing through integrated approaches combining prevention, harm reduction, treatment and cultural supports. ISC’s role is to support this continuum in partnership with Indigenous communities and organizations.
[Translation]
The committee’s report raises important questions about economic opportunity, governance and public health.
Across these areas, Indigenous Services Canada’s role remains consistent: supporting community-driven priorities within existing federal frameworks, strengthening Indigenous governance capacity and working with partners to address gaps where they exist.
[English]
As the legal cannabis market continues to evolve, approaches will continue to be shaped by Indigenous governments, federal partners and provincial systems working together within a complex regulatory environment.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I will now invite Mr. Weiner to make his opening comments.
You have the floor, sir.
Darren Weiner, Director, Excise Duty Division, Canada Revenue Agency: Thank you for the invitation to participate in today’s hearing. My name is Darren Weiner, and I’m the Director of the Excise Duty Division at the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. In my role, I oversee the overall administration of the excise duty programs for tobacco, alcohol, vaping products and cannabis.
The CRA administers the cannabis duty program under the provisions of the Excise Act, 2001. The CRA regulates the legal cannabis industry at the producer level. As part of the CRA’s cannabis program, our role focuses on licensing, producer outreach, audits and providing technical guidance to ensure licensees are meeting their obligations.
The CRA works very closely with the Department of Finance Canada, which is responsible for cannabis tax policy.
The CRA’s role is to consider interpretive positions and application issues. In respect of tax law in Canada, the CRA is responsible for its administration. As such, we appreciate this opportunity to discuss the CRA’s administration in the areas that are applicable to the committee’s areas of focus today.
We also work closely with Health Canada on the matter of licensing. I should underline here that to apply for or renew a cannabis licence from the CRA, an entity must first obtain a valid licence or permit issued under the Cannabis Act by Health Canada.
I would further note that our mandate does not include issues relating to the illicit cannabis market. That would come under the responsibility of the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and other law enforcement agencies.
With that, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the administration of the CRA’s cannabis program. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much for your opening comments.
I wish to remind members that you will each have a maximum of five minutes for your questions and answers. Senators and witnesses, please be precise.
Senator Francis: This is for any or all who would like to answer the question.
In early 2026, the police launched a series of enforcement actions at businesses located in local First Nations communities across Nova Scotia under the authority of Nova Scotia’s Cannabis Control Act. Chief Terry Paul of Membertou First Nation asserted:
. . . the Mi’kmaq have a collective treaty right to the sale of cannabis. We have the right to self-determination in our communities. We govern our people, lands, and priorities — not the province . . . .
The question is this: Has the Government of Canada engaged with Mi’kmaq First Nations regarding cannabis regulation since this provincial enforcement action occurred? If so, please tell us about the goals of this engagement and any public outcomes.
Mr. Cornish: I think that question might be more easily answered in the next session, senator. That is a question for Health Canada; they lead everything related to the act and the regulations.
Senator Francis: Okay, thank you. I’ll ask at the next session.
Senator McCallum: Welcome, and thank you for your presentations.
The Government of Canada opted not to include a mechanism in the Cannabis Act enabling First Nations governments to pass laws and bylaws regulating and enforcing the sale of cannabis on First Nations reserve lands. Witnesses before the committee in 2022 reported that the situation differs for First Nations by province or territory, resulting in inconsistencies for First Nations.
Sara Mainville, Managing Partner at JFK Law LLP, explained that this creates inequity within the regions across Canada and is entirely a problem that is borne by First Nations.
I wanted to go into the enforcement and prosecution of First Nations bylaws. Since 2014, the RCMP have not enforced bylaws on First Nations lands because prosecutors refuse to prosecute. Since 2014, they have had no enforcement or prosecutions, which means that the drug dealers continue to proliferate on the reserves, including the violence that comes with them. When that statement is made, there is a pretense that they can enforce and prosecute on their lands and the interjurisdictional issues that come with prosecution because that is provincial.
How can inequity resulting from divergent provincial regulatory frameworks for the sale of cannabis be mitigated? In your view, are legislative or other changes required to clarify First Nations jurisdiction under the Cannabis Act?
Before we go into that one, I need to say that I was here as part of the Indigenous Peoples Committee in 2018. I asked Minister Blair if it were to be taken to court, which law would supersede the province: the federal law or First Nations jurisdiction? He said First Nations jurisdiction. That is not the case. I wanted to put that there.
That was done at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Can you answer those questions, please?
Mr. Cornish: I apologize, but, again, I think that question might be easier for the next session, both in terms of the RCMP and Public Safety Canada on the enforcement question. And in relation to anything related to legislative or regulatory changes, Health Canada has the lead.
There are bylaw-making authorities on-reserve in First Nations communities, and there are always issues with enforcement; they vary across the country. One of the easiest things I can contribute to the answer today is that those who still wish to operate within the legal framework can still do that. Within certain jurisdictions, it seems to be working better than elsewhere. However, that is about all I can say on that matter.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The reason I asked you that question is because you said that First Nations have the jurisdiction on-reserve to enforce and prosecute. That’s why I asked you that question after you made your remarks.
Mr. Cornish: I’m sorry if I created any confusion there. We don’t have a role when it comes to enforcement or prosecution. Previous iterations of ISC have played a role in bringing in enabling legislation that allows nations to opt out of certain aspects of the Indian Act. Some of that relates to bylaw-making authorities over their lands. For instance, if they want to provide leases for businesses that want to start up in the cannabis trade, there are law-making authorities over their land management, and then they have local bylaw-making authorities as well under the Indian Act.
Different regimes can come into play, depending upon which ones the communities have enacted. However, we don’t necessarily play a role in anything related to enforcement.
We can approve or disallow bylaws in relation to section 83. However, in relation to section 85.1 around intoxicants and anything related to cannabis, it is the communities that decide, through a majority vote, what kind of bylaws they want to have in place for that. Otherwise, everything operates under the Cannabis Act and the regulations under that on all things related to cannabis.
In relation to things that speak to the business side of it, there are different, as I said, legal regimes that can help support creating certainty for investment and lending, and those were the pieces I was speaking about in my opening remarks.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and welcome to the witnesses. I have two questions. For the first one, I’m going to request that we get a detailed response in writing from each of your departments.
The first question is: The government has provided grouped or themed responses to the committee’s recommendations. I sit on the Human Rights Committee. We saw a similar response to the Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons, which is an issue that also disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples due to systemic inequality and marginalization. The committee found this was a significant barrier to government accountability and transparency, including in regard to the government’s obligations to Indigenous Peoples. We see the same thing with the government response to this report, so I would like a detailed response but also an answer to the question: Why did the government take this approach, which does not clearly indicate whether it has accepted or rejected each recommendation, the status of progress toward implementation and any new measures taken in response to each recommendation?
If you could provide that in writing, that would be great. I’m not sure by what date we need it, Madam Chair?
The Deputy Chair: The end of next week.
Senator Pate: That would be great.
My second question is one which I’m hoping I can get a response to today, but I’m also happy to have the committee receive further written information with respect to economic inequality. Data from 2023 indicated that only 1% of federal cannabis licences have been granted to Indigenous Peoples. This committee recommended in 2018 — when Senator McCallum, Senator Francis and a number of us were here — that 20% of licences should go to Indigenous producers. Researchers have pointed to systemic social and economic barriers to the participation in the federal licensing system, from barriers to participation for those with criminal records to less access to capital and credit. What concrete steps is the government implementing to ensure that Canada’s approach to cannabis does not mean that the privileged become wealthier while those most marginalized, particularly Indigenous Peoples, are left behind and increasingly criminalized?
Mr. Cornish: Thank you, senator. On the first question, we’ll have to follow up in writing. Indigenous Services Canada was not the lead on the government response. That would have been Health Canada.
In relation to the economic development question, what we have seen, at least through Indigenous Services Canada, is really a supply-and-demand answer to that question. There is just far less interest and demand through our economic development programs in Indigenous communities that want to enter into the trade, whether it’s through cultivation, retail or distribution.
We have a live example. One of the programs that we have is called the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, and it’s intended to take a whole-of-government approach and create partnerships with Indigenous partners where they want to advance certain economic opportunities.
In 2022, through Health Canada and the province, we created a partnership that was a way for communities in British Columbia that wanted to participate in the legal trade to learn how they could on board to do that. It includes navigating licensing requirements, access to capital and understanding how the whole business works, et cetera.
I think it was $8.5 million contributed: $6 million from the Province of British Columbia and $2.5 million from Indigenous Services Canada, and Health Canada was the lead for the initiative. When we first did the call-out, we had over 170 expressions of interest. We funded a total of 14 projects. Six of them were community-led First Nations projects, and eight were individual Indigenous entrepreneurs. Of that funding announced, only about $4.5 million has flowed so far for about $15 million worth of project value. What we’ve found is that initially with the expressions of interest, over 90% of them were non-viable or kind of low-quality applications.
There was limited Indigenous community capacity to either lead projects or advance them. When we actually started engaging and consulting with communities, of the — I think — close to 70 or 80 communities we reached out to, many just indicated this wasn’t the right time or they really had no interest in doing that.
Another problem we had with it was that non-Indigenous people were trying to access the program or businesses through it, so we had to be a little more vigilant that way.
We also added a cannabis navigator function to help Indigenous communities navigate the licensing process. On our other community-based programs that apply across the country, through the Community Opportunity Readiness Program and the Lands and Economic Development Services Program, which I mentioned in our opening remarks, we have only funded about 22 projects in the last six years. That’s on an envelope of $60‑odd million a year. We just don’t see the demand coming in for it. It is one of the reasons, I would say, for the recommendation as opposed to an Indigenous-led agency to support economic participation in the trade. There just isn’t the demand for it.
Right now, the interest is in other sectors of the economy. That is probably the simplest answer I can provide, but we can also follow that up in writing as well.
Senator Pate: I’m not Indigenous, so I don’t live in an Indigenous community, but I have experience with a similar sort of provision that was put into corrections legislation 34 years ago that provided an opportunity for Indigenous organizations and communities to access resources to reclaim their community members who had been criminalized.
People didn’t know that this existed because it was put into the law, but there was virtually no information sent out. I understand you said that you have sent out information, so I would be interested in more detail about that information outreach.
The government then set up its own policies that essentially precluded or dictated how Indigenous organizations could run those particular, in this case, section 81 and 84 opportunities for people to house prisoners and parolees in their communities. The federal government dictated how that would be implemented, and then the advice came back that people weren’t actually interested in doing it that way, which made a lot of sense because it was dictated from above.
I’m wondering if it is a similar process happening here. It would be historically familiar for me to hear that there wasn’t uptake because people often didn’t know about it. There were also issues around whether sufficient support was provided to build capacity within the community and whether there was follow-through on that versus a change to an up-down or down‑up or the dictating of an approach that wouldn’t necessarily meet the needs of the community. Then as the community gains capacity, the community is not seen to fit into the government’s model. I’m wondering if that is a part of this as well.
It is some 20 years on, but it sounds like a very similar process to one I know, unfortunately, very intimately.
Mr. Cornish: In the example I provided, through the British Columbia initiative, it was not government officials doing the direct outreach. In this partnership, the main delivery partner was New Relationship Trust, which is an Indigenous-led organization. We have a contribution agreement with them, and they do outreach to the communities. The other partners there are the Indigenous financial institutions of which three in British Columbia participated, so that is for small business lending.
They help provide business development and capacity supports, as did New Relationship Trust. Step one is: Is there a business opportunity here for us? Can we do a market study or a feasibility study? What capacity do we need to build up internally to participate in the trade? We’re here to support that, but it’s our partners who are the primary delivery agents in that sense. I don’t know if that answers the question.
Senator Pate: Well, I would be interested to know if there is then a difference in where those organizations operate and the number of Indigenous communities involved as a result, and that would be great information for the committee to have as well.
Mr. Cornish: Okay.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here. Mr. Cornish, I’m going to provide a couple of questions. I’m just curious: Further to your testimony, I want to get a specific role for your department, Indigenous Services Canada. I note your title does encompass lands and economic development. There are a lot of complexities to cannabis and developing a regime with respect to cannabis in First Nations communities.
You mentioned Health Canada takes the lead role, but obviously, there is a role there for Indigenous Services Canada. Getting back to a question from Senator McCallum with respect to bylaws, you mentioned the implementation of bylaws is more within the purview of Health Canada. I just want to confirm that. What, if any, role does your department take with respect to bylaws in terms of getting the recognition?
Mr. Cornish: Under the Indian Act, there are three primary areas that relate to bylaws: sections 81, 83 and 85.1. Section 81 bylaws are primarily municipal-type bylaws, like local traffic enforcement, et cetera.
Section 83 bylaws relate to money matters. That’s if they want to put in local property taxes or leasing and the collection of moneys.
Section 85.1 relates to intoxicants. Those bylaws generally have to be a majority vote of the community, so if a community doesn’t want to have cannabis in its community, for instance, or if it’s a dry community, then they can do that through the Indian Act.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Mr. Cornish. More specifically, what I’m looking at with respect to those bylaws is your role and the role of your department. I note that you’re, in part, responsible for lands and economic development. What role do you fulfill with respect to the development and recognition of band bylaws?
Mr. Cornish: I’m not an expert on the bylaws section, senator. I can certainly follow up on that.
Under the enabling legislation that I mentioned earlier around the First Nations Land Management Act, there is an organization that supports communities in developing their bylaws. We don’t directly participate in the development of bylaws. It used to be that, in one case, the minister had the authority to approve or disallow bylaws. That’s no longer the case for section 81 bylaws. With the section 85.1 bylaws, it’s up to the community to decide. For enforcement, we don’t play any role when it comes to enforcement.
Senator Prosper: What I take from your evidence is that there is somewhat of a vacuum there with respect to the role of your department and with respect to the bylaws and the recognition of them.
My next question is more along the lines of economic and business opportunities. You get into, I believe, 22 projects with $60 million annually allocated for opportunities, but part of your evidence suggests that you just don’t see the demand there with respect to communities, noting other priorities. I’m just curious what, if any, reporting or data collection you have in your possession that would support this position that First Nations just don’t view it as a priority. Have you consulted with those relevant First Nations? More specifically, what are the criteria that you find that First Nations undertake where they’re successful in filling in that area of cannabis in terms of jurisdiction and the market opportunity related to that? Thank you, Mr. Cornish.
Mr. Cornish: Thank you, senator. The Lands and Economic Development Services Program and the Community Opportunity Readiness Program are the two primary community-based programs for First Nations and Inuit for small business development. All of our regional offices work very closely with all the communities in the regions, and when a community applies, we look at their project. Normally, the first program helps them develop what that business opportunity might be. The second program starts to provide capital to actually get the business off the ground.
In relation to cannabis, when I mentioned there has only been a handful of projects, that’s relatively speaking. The annual budget for the Community Opportunity Readiness Program is $50 million to $60 million. It varies with our regular and enhanced funding. We’ve averaged about three cannabis-related projects a year, and it has been about $250,000 per project out of that $60 million. These are the applications that are coming in where communities are saying, “We’re interested in potentially doing a cultivation business or a retail business.” Relative to other business opportunities they want to pursue is what I meant when I said we’re just not seeing the demand.
In the last eight years, there have only been a total of 22 projects that communities have come to us with and said, “We would like you to support a business opportunity here.”
Senator Prosper: For those communities who have come forward, what are some of the typical challenges or barriers that they face? How do you work, essentially, with Health Canada to deal with some of those issues with respect to the application of your programming and First Nations wanting to step forward to deal with cannabis for the benefit of their communities?
Mr. Cornish: On the economic side, as I mentioned, we’ll help provide funding if they want to do a feasibility study or a market study. We also help in developing a business plan or a business case and connect them with Indigenous financial institutions if they need to access capital. Access to capital is always a barrier in some measure. One particular reason is that cannabis is not considered by some as a legitimate business. For instance, it used to be that under our programs, you could not apply for funding related to cannabis. Once it became legal, we changed the terms and conditions of the program to say you could.
Senator Prosper: How dependent is the success of those ventures on having space available by the provincial or territorial government? Is it the case that they just don’t see that as an opportunity for First Nations and, in terms of your programming, they’re basically offline if that’s the case?
How does provincial and territorial jurisdiction over cannabis undermine those opportunities for First Nations that want to pursue your programming?
Mr. Cornish: Thank you for the question. All of our programming, in the first instance, has to be part of the legal trade. You must be able to have a licence to operate a cannabis business, whether cultivation or retail. All the licensing normally happens through the provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
In some cases, there have been agreements, like in British Columbia, where they’re fine to work with nations to do that, and in some other jurisdictions, it’s not as advanced. But everything related to the legal and regulatory side of it has to go through Health Canada and the jurisdiction in which they’re trying to operate. Once those conditions are met, then you can become a legal business and apply for funding.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome to our meeting. I have two questions for the Department of Finance and the CRA, but I also have a point of clarity and I’m not sure who can start with that.
What I’m hearing is that there is a relatively low number of in‑community dispensaries across the country. So that’s the point of clarity I’m looking for. But assuming there are some, my questions are these: The committee report suggested that an excise tax-sharing framework for First Nations should be developed to share revenues more broadly. I’m looking for a comment about progress on that. Second, have revenues from cannabis sales in community been used to mitigate some of the social issues arising from the legalization of cannabis in order to benefit those communities? First of all, on the point of clarity, I’ve heard a couple of times that the number of dispensaries in community is relatively low across the country. Who wants to go there?
Mr. Cornish: I don’t have the data on that. Health Canada might have that in terms of the numbers that have been licensed. The ones we’ve been speaking to are the ones where we’ve provided financial support from an economic point of view.
Senator Sorensen: All right. I’ll turn it over to the numbers people.
Lesley Taylor, Director General, Intergovernmental Tax Policy, Evaluation and Research Division, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, senator. My apologies, I’m battling laryngitis, so please give me a signal if it’s not loud enough.
Thank you for the report and the invitation to be here today. It obviously raises a number of important issues.
The wording toward the end of the recommendation regarding the excise taxation was situated with respect to our new fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco, or FACT, tax regime. We’re pleased to provide an update that with the passage of Bill C-15, the framework legislation for that new regime is now in place. That is the first in a number of steps that we will need to undertake to get to the point of tax being levied under Indigenous laws on Indigenous lands for those communities that are interested in participating in that framework.
That framework relates to the application of the sales tax to cannabis products. Again, that is a different tax base than excise. That is where the government’s priority is at this point in that we’ve committed to going ahead with this framework. The law is now in place federally as a framework.
The next stages are continuing with the outreach and engagement that we’ve had with many communities throughout Canada that have come forward as either just curious about this regime or interested in actually being early adopters and first proponents.
The next phases will be the negotiation of tax administration agreements with these interested communities. They will then impose laws under their own framework. We will step back federally from applying the GST. There are the processes that allow the Indigenous laws to take up that room and take up that jurisdiction.
Once those revenues start flowing and once these agreements are in place and once our partners at the CRA begin administering — essentially free of charge — these taxes, the revenues become revenues of the communities and the governments that have enacted them. That’s important because there will be no conditionality there. That’s revenue for these communities for their own priorities to be spent as they wish.
Cannabis is obviously an important part of that. That’s driving interest in a number of communities. In terms of some of the other questions here today about ways that communities can actually start to benefit economically, the Department of Finance is certainly in favour of advancing these kinds of agreements.
Excise is different. Under the Constitution, only the federal government has the excise jurisdiction. Even the provinces and territories do not have excise jurisdiction. It’s a very complex field. Part of it relates to how the tax is applied. It is applied upstream at that producer level or importer level, and frequently the tax is passed through in the price of the good to ultimate consumers. You have a disconnect between the incidence of the tax at the final consumer and where it’s paid and collected back to the Government of Canada.
It raises a number of questions about how that would actually work in practice, how it could work and how you would deal with issues of fairness, where you have communities with a lot of production but which don’t have many consumers paying the tax as ultimate consumers and buyers of the final product, yet there is a big production facility.
Again, how any of that would work is very challenging. Going back to the FACT tax regime, its framework is now in place. We are very excited to be moving forward. We’re happy to be engaging across the country for the next couple of months. We hope to see those agreements come on stream and hope to get money flowing as quickly as possible, essentially.
Senator Sorensen: So it was Bill C-15 that allowed that?
Ms. Taylor: Correct, yes.
Senator Sorensen: Good to know. I didn’t make the connection.
Maybe this isn’t a question for this group — it might be for the next panel — but there’s the idea of the social issues arising from the legalization of cannabis, specifically in Indigenous communities, and if there are revenues being directed to deal with some of those social issues. But that might not be something that you’re aware of.
Mr. Cornish: We don’t direct communities in terms of what they do with their own revenues.
Senator Sorensen: Okay.
Mr. Cornish: Certainly, on the economic side, where we’ve seen communities with strong own-source revenue capacity, that has made a very big difference in their ability to provide additional programs, services and supports to their members. Anything related to community-owned businesses, which is primarily what we support, the intention there is that they’re like their own little Crown corporations. Those revenues and dividends are paid back to the community for the general use and benefit of all their members. Very often, that goes into things like elder care, cultural programming, et cetera. I don’t have any numbers on that, but the communities decide what to do with their revenues. We don’t direct it by saying you must spend it here or there.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Thank you for the information, and thank you to the presenters. This is along the lines of the recent questions.
I’ve sat on many boards that lend out money to entrepreneurs in Nunavut, and the biggest difficulty they seem to encounter is the CRA and financial reporting.
With the numbers put in of how many people were interested, how many people got to the next level and with so few people at the end, is that in relation to the difficult process of reporting requirements, keeping up with the CRA and contributions? Is there any financial support for these organizations to respond to the paperwork? I ask because in my experience, it has been an onerous task only on the entrepreneur to meet Canada’s request for reporting and getting their corporate taxes in, and they just fail at that part even though they had a good idea for a business. They get drowned in administration requests. Do you find that’s the case also with some of these applicants, which started with so many numbers yet you only get a few filtering through? Thank you.
Mr. Weiner: I’ll just talk a little bit about the excise administration. Certainly, there is a lot of paperwork that needs to be filled out. Specifically, for the duty program for cannabis, we have a very robust outreach program. That means that for any licensee, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, who requires assistance to help fill out their forms or help to comply with the legislation, we’re available to help. If they want help with the paperwork through an on-site visit or if they want a virtual visit, we’re there to help them comply with the legislation.
Cannabis and the duty programs are quite small at the CRA, so we do have the ability to provide very high-level support to ensure that they are complying with their obligations.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Just to follow up on that, when we look at letters coming from the CRA, I think most people don’t see that line where it says to please call them if any help is required. There needs to be better outreach in dealing with that part because most people panic as soon as they see a letter from the CRA. There needs to be capacity building with any interaction, especially with Indigenous communities that don’t trust the system as it is. Even in my previous role, I found that people were very reluctant to call the CRA to have a friendly conversation.
The amount of paperwork and dealing with financial reporting might be deterring people from participating in this endeavour. Thank you.
Senator Clement: I want to follow up on some of those comments made by Senator Karetak-Lindell.
I introduced myself earlier. I’m from Cornwall, which is on Mohawk territory. My questions will be for the Department of Finance folks.
The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke just announced they are not going to do any cannabis at all, so I’m curious about how your departments build relationships with Indigenous communities. What are you doing? ISC has told us; we have some idea of that. What do you do in order to build trust, and how do you reach out? ISC has told us that sometimes they use intermediaries and New Relationship Trust. Do your departments use Indigenous organizations to build relationships to communicate?
I just want to give an example of a frustration. In Cornwall, we co-own property with the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. It’s waterfront property. There is huge economic development potential, but we’re stuck. The city can tax, but the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne cannot tax in the same way. We’re trying to be partners, but the taxation differences mean that we’re not able to come together on a lot of financial pieces.
If you could, please speak to economic development and how we’re going to build trust and actually build projects together that could really lead to some reconciliation and great economic development for municipalities and Indigenous and First Nations communities.
Brent Almond, Senior Director, Indigenous Tax Policy, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you very much, senator, for the question and the concerns you raised around economic development.
I was thinking about responses to the first part of your comments as you were speaking, and I will admit that developing relationships is challenging. There is a natural mistrust of the federal government, but at Finance Canada and in the Tax Policy Branch, we have worked very hard over a number of years to develop those relationships by being as straightforward and as forthright as we can be in terms of our roles and how we can support Indigenous governments that might be interested in generating revenues through taxation.
To be more specific, we don’t and have not relied upon intermediaries, certainly not in recent years or for quite a number of years that I’ve been involved in these files and in this role. However, we do use — as other committee members and senators may be aware — organizations like the First Nations Tax Commission. Institutions under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act don’t play a formal role with us, but when interests align — and quite often, on tax jurisdiction matters, interests do align in terms of the benefits of the revenues that can be generated through taxation — the First Nations Tax Commission and other institutions play a very symbiotic role with the Department of Finance Canada.
That definitely does support our work in terms of credibility and building trust.
Again, it’s very clear that many communities feel more comfortable having the discussions with an Indigenous-led organization rather than me and federal officials. That’s very helpful.
To underscore this, it is a challenge in our work. Building those relationships and maintaining that level of trust are challenges, but we continue to work as best as we can on that. Sometimes there are opportunities for symbiotic relations, such as with the First Nations Tax Commission.
On the second point regarding the challenges around jurisdiction and development opportunities, I’m not an expert in this area, but I would make a comment acknowledging that it is a very challenging area. You have a situation where multiple jurisdictions are involved. I had the opportunity several years ago to tour with the Grand Chief of Akwesasne. I theoretically knew about the level of jurisdictional challenges, but I saw them on the ground. They were pretty incredible. It is not easy to overcome those challenges jurisdictionally, but as an example, I’m thinking about where there might be opportunities. Where one government has clear jurisdiction in an area, let’s say, there would potentially be opportunities to do innovative solutions around revenue sharing or things like that to balance the benefits of projects.
However, since I’m not an expert in that area, I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much for the question.
Senator Clement: I’ll follow up. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: In looking at the time, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank all of our witnesses for coming today. Thank you. I know you were asked to submit some written documents, but if you have any others that you would like to submit, please feel free to email them to the clerk.
For our second panel of witnesses, we welcome at the table, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Jennifer Ebert, Assistant Commissioner, Operational Policing Services, Indigenous, Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Policing; from Public Safety Canada, Adrian Walraven, Director General, Indigenous Affairs; and via video conference, from Health Canada, John Clare, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch.
Thanks to all of you for joining us here today. Our witnesses will provide us with opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Ms. Ebert to give her opening remarks, followed by Mr. Walraven and Mr. Clare.
Jennifer Ebert, Assistant Commissioner, Operational Policing Services, Indigenous, Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning, chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear today as we gather on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Nation and recognize the continuing presence of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in this region.
I am Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Ebert, and I am responsible for operational policing services under the RCMP’s Indigenous, Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Policing business line. In addition to my role within national headquarters, I also bring 28 years of operational front-line policing experience across two territories and five provinces, spanning from the Prairies to the Atlantic, where I served as the commanding officer in both P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, recognizes the significance of this report and the lived realities it reflects. The issues identified by the committee, particularly those related to jurisdiction, enforcement and policing capacity, are grounded in testimony from Indigenous leaders, community representatives and policing professionals. They reflect persistent, real-world challenges experienced by communities and law enforcement alike.
As Canada’s national police service, the RCMP’s mandate encompasses the enforcement of federal law, including the Cannabis Act, alongside the delivery of policing services that support community safety through partnership with provinces, territories and Indigenous governments. In many Indigenous communities, this work occurs within complex legal and governance environments, requiring careful engagement with all partners.
The RCMP recognizes that organized crime may target vulnerable and Indigenous communities to exploit legal markets. We will continue to work with partners, including First Nations police services, to continue to investigate illegal drug production and trafficking, including cannabis. Ensuring the safety and well‑being of Indigenous communities is a top priority for the RCMP.
The committee heard testimony that the Cannabis Act does not provide First Nations with clear authority to regulate or enforce cannabis laws on their lands. From an operational policing perspective, this presents challenges, as policing services must operate within a legal environment where federal enforcement responsibilities coexist with evolving expectations around the enforcement of band bylaws without a fully aligned regulatory or legislative framework.
The RCMP has the legal authority to enforce all valid Canadian laws, whether they be federal, provincial, territorial or Indigenous laws, consistent with core policing activities associated with the maintenance of public safety while also maintaining discretion in the decisions regarding when to enforce these laws. The RCMP acknowledges the challenges around band bylaw enforcement and Indigenous communities’ desires to exercise their respective local governance authorities as well as expectations around cannabis regulation.
The RCMP agrees with the committee’s observation that these gaps can contribute to the growth of illicit cannabis operations, some of which are associated with organized crime, which increases violence and impaired driving and elevates community safety concerns.
In the absence of clear and coordinated frameworks, enforcement responses risk being inconsistent, reactive and contentious for communities. Impaired driving, whether it is related to cannabis, alcohol or other substances, poses a significant risk. The RCMP is engaging First Nations police agencies to ensure awareness of and access to drug recognition expert training course opportunities. The RCMP acknowledges that, historically, access to drug recognition expert training has been constrained by capacity and demand. We recognize the committee’s concern, and we are committed to working continually with Public Safety Canada and Indigenous policing partners to improve access in a manner that is sustainable and responsive to community needs, providing greater road safety and stronger enforcement outcomes for communities.
It is important to emphasize that policing alone cannot resolve the challenges identified in the committee report. These efforts can also be supported by jurisdictional clarity, legislative recognition of Indigenous laws and sustainable funding models. While these areas are beyond the RCMP’s purview, they do have an influence on policing outcomes.
From the RCMP’s perspective, clear legal authorities benefit everyone. They provide certainty to communities, legitimacy to Indigenous governance and operational clarity for police officers tasked with maintaining public safety. They also reduce the risk of conflict between police services, community leadership and other orders of government.
The RCMP remains committed to reconciliation through respectful partnership, and we will continue to work closely with Indigenous police services, Indigenous leadership and federal partners to support community-led approaches to public safety.
This committee’s work is an important contribution to these efforts.
In closing, the RCMP welcomes continued dialogue on how the government response can translate into practical, on-the-ground improvements. We stand ready to support initiatives that enhance clarity, safety and trust, while recognizing that enduring solutions must be Indigenous-informed and legislatively sound.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ebert.
Mr. Walraven, you have the floor.
Adrian Walraven, Director General, Indigenous Affairs, Public Safety Canada: Good morning. Thank you, honourable chair and committee members, for having me back again today as we gather here on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I will be shortening some of my opening remarks, having heard some of the questions this morning. I will try to tailor my opening remarks in that regard.
I am the Director General of Indigenous Affairs at Public Safety Canada. In that capacity, I am responsible for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, which has some relevance to some of the conversations I think we will have here today.
[Translation]
As we look to the future of First Nations and Inuit policing, and safety in Indigenous communities, it is essential to acknowledge the commitments that guide our efforts.
[English]
The Government of Canada, in close collaboration with First Nations and Inuit communities, as well as provincial and territorial partners, is committed to supporting Indigenous policing and community safety in a manner that responds to their unique needs and supports self-determination. This work is supported by recent federal investments, notably Budget 2024, in the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, or FNIPP, as well as the First Nations and Inuit Policing Facilities Program, or FNIPFP. In the fiscal year that just ended, we invested approximately $393 million in the FNIPP and just over $21 million in the FNIPFP, which is the infrastructure program. The majority of this funding is focused on supporting the stabilization of the 36 First Nations and Inuit police services that operate across Canada so that they can provide the dedicated and culturally responsive policing services that communities deserve.
The second major thrust of our programming under the FNIPP is to support enhanced policing in First Nations and Inuit communities, including an annual financial transfer that we send to the RCMP to support augmented numbers of RCMP regular members in First Nations and Inuit communities. As may be relevant to today’s conversation, under the FNIPP, we are increasingly supporting First Nations community safety officers who, as a complement to police officers, support community safety outcomes in First Nations and Inuit communities.
[Translation]
Although we have made significant progress, we recognize that there is still much work to be done.
[English]
In November 2025 and February 2026, at the request of the honourable members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer prepared two reports on First Nations and Inuit policing. Notably, the second report estimated that the annual federal funding gap for First Nations and Inuit police services is approximately $232 million as of 2026-27.
We thank the Parliamentary Budget Officer for this analysis. Public Safety Canada is now using those findings to inform our forward options for both programs.
Madam Chair, I want to reiterate my department’s ongoing commitment to working in partnership with First Nations and Inuit communities, alongside provincial and territorial governments, so that policing in First Nations communities is supported by professional, dedicated and culturally responsive police officers.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walraven.
Mr. Clare, you now have the floor.
John Clare, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators. I will also be modifying and shortening my remarks. I am joining you today from Revelstoke, B.C., which is the home of the Sinixt, Ktunaxa, Secwépemc and Syilx First Nations. I thank them for their stewardship of this beautiful land.
My remarks today build upon previous updates provided by Health Canada to this committee in 2022 as well as the government response in March 2024 to this committee’s twelfth report.
In that response, the government highlighted Health Canada’s ongoing commitment to engage with this committee to address any concerns in the government response, as well as any actions taken to respond to recommendations from the Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act.
Members of this committee will recall that their twelfth report was tabled in the context of the statutory review of the Cannabis Act. With respect to that review, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions launched that review in September 2022 by appointing an independent expert panel. The expert panel was mandated to consider impacts on First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and communities, as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities and women who might be at greater risk of harm or face barriers to participation in the legal cannabis industry.
The expert panel engaged broadly, including with Indigenous governments, communities and organizations, to gather perspectives to inform the review. They adopted a distinctions-based approach in engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis, which included meetings with the Assembly of First Nations, representatives of the four Inuit regions, the Manitoba Métis Federation, the Métis National Council as well as several specific individual First Nations communities.
In March 2024, the minister tabled the independent expert panel’s final report in Parliament. That report concluded that the core functions of the cannabis framework are appropriately positioned to continue to protect public health and public safety, but some areas require further attention. To address these areas, the panel made 54 recommendations to strengthen the administration of the Cannabis Act, including recommendations to improve Indigenous outcomes in health, public safety and law enforcement and economic participation.
In developing their advice, the expert panel considered the recommendations from this committee’s 2023 report and made reference to them where applicable.
Health Canada is focused on addressing areas that pertain to our mandated public health and regulatory responsibilities and has already taken a number of actions to respond to those recommendations. For example, in response to seven different recommendations, Health Canada implemented amendments to the Cannabis Regulations in March 2025 that reduce burden and costs for legal cannabis producers, including by simplifying packaging and labelling requirements and reducing record-keeping and reporting.
Together, these streamlining measures have optimized the regulatory framework and have enabled all regulated parties to benefit from reduced regulatory burden while maintaining the public health and public safety objectives of the act.
In response to different recommendations, Health Canada continues to develop and deliver public education on the risks associated with cannabis use. This includes expanding the “safe storage” campaign designed to reduce the risk of accidental pediatric exposures to cannabis, including piloting a new rack card available in cannabis retail locations across provinces and territories, as well as translating materials into the two languages in Nunavut for distribution in that territory. This also includes adapting the “How to help prevent cannabis poisoning in children” brochures and the Pursue Your Passion in-school campaign by translating them into Plains Cree, Eastern Ojibway and Inuktitut. Health Canada is also sharing its cannabis digital tool kit, a central place for stakeholders to easily access and download specific public education materials about cannabis.
Finally, Budget 2025 allocated renewed funding to continue the administration of the Cannabis Act, which included a $24‑million investment over three years for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, to support cannabis research. Last fall, the CIHR launched a national consortium to study the effects of cannabis use on brain health, and one of the priority areas is Indigenous people’s health and cannabis.
In conclusion, Health Canada appreciates the perspectives generously shared by First Nations, Inuit and Métis during ongoing engagement activities, and once again, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clare, and thank you to all of you for your opening remarks.
I wish to open the floor to questions from senators. I want to remind you that you each have five minutes for your questions and responses. I will ask members and witnesses to be concise.
Senator Francis: Good morning, everyone. Nice to see you again, Ms. Ebert. This question is for you.
The committee recommended that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide dedicated space for First Nations police services to undertake drug recognition expert training and that Public Safety Canada provide additional funding to First Nations policing to support this work. How many, if any, spots are currently reserved for officers from Indigenous police forces in the drug recognition expert training cycles, and is that number meeting the actual demand from those communities?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question. In relation to the drug recognition expert training, since its inception, we have trained 41 First Nations police officers from 18 different services across the country through their requests. This spans across the country. Most recently, there were two officers from Quebec.
The RCMP is the steward of this training for all of Canada, and we provide the training through funding that we’ve received through Public Safety Canada.
I don’t have the specifics of how many requests we have had in relation to the number of First Nations police officers seeking that training. However, the RCMP and other police services also attend those training courses for drug recognition expert training and provide that level of investigation in First Nations communities as well.
Senator Francis: Can you tell me a bit more about what the training consists of? How is it being adapted, if at all, to ensure that drug recognition and intervention protocols are culturally sensitive?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question. The drug recognition expert training is done through the International Association of Chiefs of Police and is largely done outside of Canada in the U.S., with only a few agencies in Canada. It is done in both official languages: English and French. The availability of this training largely depends on the availability of spots we have through the United States. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program and the standard field sobriety testing are also delivered in blocks of testing.
I believe your question, senator, was about culturally sensitive training. It’s provided outside of Canada. I don’t have that information in front of me. If anything has been introduced in terms of culturally sensitive training, I would be happy to provide that to you in writing.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.
For my first question — and you may have heard it during the first panel — I’m requesting that each of the witnesses respond in writing by the end of next week.
The government has provided grouped or themed responses to the committee’s recommendations and report. We saw a similar response at the Human Rights Committee in the Senate in response to the Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons. This is an issue that also disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples, as did that report, due to systemic inequality and marginalization. The committee found this was a significant barrier to government accountability and transparency, including in regard to the government’s obligations to Indigenous Peoples. My request to you is to explain why the government took this approach, which does not clearly indicate whether it has accepted or rejected each recommendation, the status of progress toward implementation and any new measures taken in response to each recommendation. Please provide that response in writing as a follow-up to ensure that we have full information on each of the recommendations made by the committee. So that’s that.
Second, we know data suggests that Indigenous individuals are at least three times more likely than non-Indigenous individuals to have previously experienced cannabis-related convictions. And they are at least 4 to 11 times more likely to have experienced cannabis-related arrests linked to underlying systemic inequalities.
My questions are: Have these rates changed since decriminalization of cannabis possession in 2018? My understanding is that the minister has had to issue a ministerial directive because the requirement to remove records from individuals for simple possession was not possible due to the existing scheme not being all online. What measures are being taken to ensure that there is a streamlined process for record expiry or record expungement? And what concrete steps is the government taking to examine an expanded approach to sealing records to better account for and redress the historical inequalities? How are you collecting data and analyzing the impact of historical criminal records on Indigenous communities to ensure approaches to the Cannabis Regulations are meaningfully redressing those underlying inequalities? Any data you can share would be appreciated.
I know that is a lot, but it impacts a lot of Indigenous folks, and it is interconnected, of course, with other kinds of charges. Any information you can provide now would be great, but if you want to provide it all in writing, that’s fine too.
Mr. Clare: I’ll start by answering the first part of the question and then turn to my colleague from Public Safety Canada to talk about record suspension. In terms of the format, I took note of the senator’s question in the first hour in terms of the government response taking a thematic approach. I take note of her request to follow up in writing on specific recommendations.
The only thing I can offer in terms of the format of the approach is that part of our role at Health Canada is to coordinate across government. Cannabis legalization is a horizontal initiative. It’s partly evidenced by the number of different witnesses today from different government departments who have different areas of responsibility on each area. In coordinating that response, in an attempt to try to collect and organize the different initiatives going across different departments, that is why a thematic approach was taken.
I take note of her concern around being transparent and direct about responding to specific recommendations. That’s the response I can offer. It was just to try to collect and organize all of the different initiatives into different buckets aligned with the different recommendations.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that. I look forward to your more complete written response.
Mr. Walraven: In response to the question, it’s duly noted that a written response will need to be provided.
What I can say for the moment is the issue of addressing the process for expunging criminal records does come up in my general discussions with First Nations from time to time. What I can say today and most recently — I think this was in discussions with the Whitecap Dakota Nation when we were there a little while ago — and similar to the conversation with the CRA earlier, there is an awareness-building effort that needs to be reinforced to make sure people know that the process exists and they can navigate it effectively. I look forward to providing a more fulsome written response to the question.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, Mr. Walraven.
In addition to that, if you can talk about what progress was made. It may be for both Assistant Commissioner Ebert and you. My understanding is part of the reason a ministerial directive is required is because the streamlining of the records has not occurred. I think I first heard it from Minister Goodale that there was work being done on that to allow for streamlining and to allow for the expungement of records. Whatever progress is being made there would be helpful.
My understanding is if people get stopped, the record still shows up. There is a ministerial directive to say you can’t take it into account, but if an individual police officer may not know, how is that being dealt with?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question. I don’t have that information before me right now, but I will ensure that you have it in writing.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the panellists who provided us with information. You heard my question, Mr. Walraven; it is on the ability of First Nations to have their bylaws respected, enforced and prosecuted.
I found it really frustrating with the first panel because they were — I don’t even know what they do; I really don’t.
In the executive summary, it says, “First Nations need authority under federal law to regulate the possession, sale and distribution of cannabis.”
Under the Cannabis Act, the Government of Canada opted not to include a mechanism enabling First Nations governments to pass laws and bylaws regulating and enforcing the sale of cannabis on First Nations reserve lands, but this issue is for all bylaws because it’s captured under that.
When we look at Bill C-49, it would expand the range of powers that First Nations could have, and then when we look at Bill C-428, it eliminated the minister’s oversight in regard to bylaws and gives First Nations autonomy and responsibility — those two laws passed — yet despite that, First Nations call that they’re in a stranded regime, as they have not been able since 2019 to enforce or prosecute.
When I looked at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs report, the RCMP in B.C. said, “We enforce.” Saskatchewan said, “Absolutely not.” Manitoba is a “no.” So it’s different all around, and I don’t even know if B.C. is able to enforce their bylaws.
They want to be able to enforce Canadian cannabis laws on their lands, and you heard me say that when we were at the Legal Committee in 2018, I asked Minister Blair what would take precedence: federal, provincial or First Nations laws? He said First Nations laws would, and that was at committee. So we are still left up in the air with the cannabis laws.
In your view, are legislative or other changes required to clarify First Nations jurisdiction under the Cannabis Act?
Mr. Walraven: I’d be pleased to take the first opportunity to answer that question.
What I heard our previous panellists seek to explain is in regard to the regulated cannabis market: I heard them say that when a First Nation wishes to participate — if they wish to work with the province of jurisdiction under the act and also align with Health Canada regulatory authorities — in many parts of the country, that is working. I heard them say in British Columbia, in particular, they felt that it was working well.
I note that the question posed for a response is broader. We need to speak more broadly about how it is working in terms of First Nations laws and bylaws being enacted, enforced and prosecuted where needed.
What we have in the context of cannabis is also a conversation today about what is happening with the illegal cannabis market. I do have interactions with many First Nations. I was in Kahnawà:ke on Thursday, where the illegal market is a concern. And how do we enforce and make sure that First Nations wishes and desires to have community safety in an environment where they have similar problems can be respected and supported?
I look forward to probably answering over the course of this morning broader questions about bylaw enforcement, but that is the response I would provide to that specific question at this time.
Senator McCallum: You know I have the 2 p.m. days on the floor, and you said the initiative in B.C. is working. None of the provinces are prosecuting. It’s only in Manitoba that has the pilot project. I was in B.C. specifically about the enforcement and prosecution. There are different stories, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said they will not enforce any. Because it is a provincial jurisdiction, then they have to have a relationship, and none of the provinces, except in Manitoba, have that relationship. I just wanted to clarify that.
The Deputy Chair: Did you want to comment, Ms. Ebert?
Ms. Ebert: I can, Madam Chair.
In relation to cannabis and band bylaws, the RCMP can enforce all laws, whether it’s federal, provincial, territorial or Indigenous laws. Band bylaws, by their nature, are valid and can be enforced. The discretion of the enforcement does rest with the individual officers as far as the discretion. The prosecutorial piece I can’t speak to.
Band bylaws vary significantly by community and across the country. Although band bylaws cannot conflict with federal or provincial cannabis laws, in some areas where a band bylaw may be helpful in relation to regulated legal cannabis is in relation to proximity to schools, specifically where you would like those regulated legal cannabis dispensaries located. The enforcement around illicit, non-regulated dispensaries is an entirely different conversation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses here for providing testimony. Previously, before having this privilege of sitting as a senator, I was a Chief within a community. I had the portfolio of justice at the time. The Cannabis Control Act came out within Nova Scotia. There were discussions that had taken place with the province.
At the time, the Mi’kmaq were looking for some space to have some jurisdiction and involvement over cannabis. There was no space provided within Nova Scotia.
I understand that there are some regimes and agreements in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. My question is for Mr. Clare. In the absence of the provincial government providing an opportunity for First Nations to participate within the jurisdiction over cannabis and the sale of cannabis, what other options exist for First Nations in that regard federally?
Mr. Clare: We tend to talk about the cannabis industry as a single thing. The way the framework and the regime have been set out in Canada under the Cannabis Act is that Health Canada serves as the regulator for the production of cannabis. So it’s the cultivation and processing.
The wholesale distribution and retail sales are set out for provincial governments to oversee, authorize and regulate. To answer the senator’s question about what opportunities exist at the federal level, the main opportunity is on that production side.
The approach that Health Canada takes is that if a First Nations community wants to enact a cannabis control law that oversees the production of cannabis, the cultivation and the manufacturing of finished products, we’ll sit down with that community and try to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement, where you see the application of the Cannabis Act being applied in coordination with the First Nation’s own cannabis law.
The Cannabis Act, as enacted by Parliament, is a law of general application. It applies across the country. Under that act, a licence is required from the Minister of Health, but that doesn’t preclude a First Nations government from also exercising the legal authority to regulate that same activity and to require their own authorization.
We have an example of that. I know this committee has heard from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke in that regard, where we have an arrangement with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. There is a licensed producer in that community who has been licensed by both Health Canada and the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke so that each level of government is able to exercise some degree of regulatory oversight for that producer.
That’s the main opportunity in terms of engagement with Health Canada and the federal government.
Senator Prosper: Just to follow up on that, you mentioned that opportunity within Kahnawà:ke. Does that regime that has been set up involve any buy-in from the provincial government in that regard?
Mr. Clare: No, not expressly. It really has to do with the regulatory requirements for the production of cannabis for that specific production site in Kahnawà:ke. The authorization that the licence holder holds is a licence from Health Canada and an authorization from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke.
Senator Prosper: Mr. Clare, if we were to go beyond production into sale and distribution, is that exclusively provincial?
Mr. Clare: The main role that Health Canada plays in that context is to try to be at the table in a tripartite sense to bring the province into the conversation to allow for a similar type of arrangement.
Senator Prosper: Mr. Clare, I just want to follow up on that: Within that tripartite arrangement, if you don’t have a willing provincial or territorial government to provide that space for sale and distribution through their own First Nations laws, what are your options? What things can your government do even in union with First Nations if you’re not having a willing provincial or territorial partner in those tripartite discussions?
Mr. Clare: I can answer for myself as an official who is administering the Cannabis Act and our regulatory responsibilities. The main role we play is as a facilitator. We try to engage and bring the First Nation and the province together to try to find a mutually beneficial arrangement. I’m constrained by the authorities that exist under the Cannabis Act. The main role we play is as that facilitator, which is trying to find an agreement to reach that type of mutually agreeable arrangement between the First Nation and the provincial government.
Senator Prosper: Just to further clarify, it’s a facilitation role. You don’t see the need to reconcile the Cannabis Act with a federal act like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act? You don’t see that space where there has to be consistency between the declaration and the federal Cannabis Act. It’s just not on your radar. Is that correct?
Mr. Clare: No, it’s on my radar, and I’ve taken note of this committee’s recommendation in their report. I’ve taken note of the expert panel’s recommendations in this space in the legislative review. It’s just that as an official, I’m constrained by the act that has been passed by Parliament.
It’s in administering the act as enacted where I find that this is my role on this specific issue. Whether or not the law should be amended, others have made that recommendation, and I’m sure the honourable senators understand the position I’m in as an official. My advice to the minister with respect to those recommendations is advice to ministers, and it’s not something that I can share.
Senator Prosper: I have just one more question: Why is there no movement by your department? Is it a matter of choice that you just don’t want to move forward despite the facts and specifics that have been made public through study of this particular issue and in involving and hearing from First Nations perspectives?
Mr. Clare: I would answer the question in two ways. I can’t speak for the government in terms of response to recommendations to amend legislation. That’s the prerogative of government. As an official, I can’t amend legislation or even propose amendments to legislation. But what I can do as an official is to operate within the context and the legal framework as enacted by Parliament.
In that regard, we are taking action. There was a question in the previous session about what form of engagement and what form of consultation we’re talking about. My group in Health Canada sits down and has nation-to-nation discussions with individual First Nations who want to enact their own cannabis laws and want to seek to find that type of arrangement where both the Cannabis Act and the First Nations laws are applied to those activities in the community. That’s the action I can speak to as an official. It’s difficult for me to speak to the government’s reasons for whether or not to move specific pieces of legislation.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: As a follow-up comment to that, it could be in the purview of First Nations themselves to bring in the notion of the declaration and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. First Nations governments could bring that forward as part of this conversation that you’ve just spoken about. Is that right? Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. Clare: That is my understanding as well.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: As a supplementary comment to your response, it is, in fact, part of the responsibility of the bureaucracy to provide advice to the ministers about suggested legislative change, improvement and that sort of thing.
I think you’re saying you can’t tell us what your advice to the minister may have been, but if there are areas you can flag that have already been flagged by the committee, I think it would be useful for the committee to know those are common concerns.
And perhaps in response to Senator Prosper, you could also talk about your ability to do the work in the regulatory sandbox, if I can put it that way, and make recommendations there. Maybe that could be part of the written follow-up as well. Thank you.
Senator Clement: I so appreciate the questions from Senator Prosper. That lack of consistency is so frustrating and a real barrier in terms of how to move forward and plan to build. Thank you for those questions.
I’m going to go back to some of your responses to Senator Francis around cultural sensitivity and training. You talked about both official languages, but I would like to hear you speak about Indigenous languages and its role or how you’re centring the importance of that in the work you’re doing. I know you won’t speak to what’s going on necessarily in terms of training outside of Canada, but I’m very interested in what you’re doing here.
Mr. Walraven: Thank you very much for the question. What I can say is under the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, part of the rationale for the funding we provide — cost-shared with provinces and territories — to support the types of initiatives I laid out in my opening remarks is to make sure we are supporting equity-based policing in First Nations communities and then, on top of that, having supports that respond to the cultural needs of the community.
Where we are funding First Nations or Inuit police services, the funding we are providing to them enables them to support whatever cultural training, language training or other relevant training, to your question, in that domain.
And we continue to work with them in discussing what the financial needs for those types of supports are and where we can go from the status quo we have at the moment.
I don’t believe that fully addresses everything inherent in your question, but for the purposes of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, that is what I can say we aim to support.
Senator Clement: Are there any specific languages you have noted through your building of relationships with different communities regarding which communities are focused on that or have prioritized that?
Mr. Walraven: Well, what I can say is we have many: For example, there’s the Nunavik Police Service in northern Quebec, the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service in northern Ontario and the Mohawk police services that we support in Akwesasne and Kahnawà:ke. And I think this is also a conversation that comes up about the RCMP policing in Mi’kma’ki territory. There are parts of the country where the community fluency is the point where they’re looking for police services that respect that language fluency.
Where we are aiming to provide proper and effective police services and language, having front-line officers who are able to provide service in the language of choice is something that does come up in conversation, which is what we try to financially support through the program.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Any other questions from senators? We have about three and a half minutes left.
Senator Prosper: I have a question for Mr. Walraven. You mentioned a concern with respect to matters related to the illegal cannabis market and the issues of public safety related to that. Certainly, Indigenous communities have sought to address public safety issues through their own laws, whether they are band bylaws or First Nations laws under a specific land code.
Ms. Ebert, you mentioned about band bylaws as well and that they’re in fact laws that are recognized, certainly within Canada, and they have a legal standing in that regard.
If First Nations communities have issues with respect to public health and safety involving cannabis through the passage of laws, why is there a general reluctance of the federal government to institute mechanisms and processes to implement these laws?
I do understand there’s a provincial component, but certainly there is a large component as well within the federal domain. Can either of you provide comments on that?
Mr. Walraven: Thank you very much for the question. What I would offer in direct response to the question is I think there is recognition on my part and also, I think, the Government of Canada officials who have been speaking to this committee on the general issue of bylaw enforcement and First Nations law enforcement that we need to deepen our efforts to make sure we have coherence, clarity and structure to how bylaws are created, enforced, prosecuted and enacted.
What I would say, though, is it depends a little bit on what the focus of the bylaw is in terms of how well it is working. If a bylaw is configured and has synchronicity with provincial or federal regulations — which is partly what we heard in this discussion in some places about how cannabis production and retail alignment is where it is — then things can work well.
Where we do have a bit of a disconnect is where First Nations are seeking to enforce laws and bylaws that have some degree of separation from the broader Canadian legal system. As I think the senator who departed is aware, in some places we have been supporting initiatives at a local level that build relationships between First Nations law enforcement and prosecution services so that everyone is on the same page about how things could and should work, but we need to expand that into other areas.
And we need to cross-fertilize awareness between different parts of the country because some really great innovative things are taking place in certain parts of the country, as committee members know, but we need to make sure people are aware and we’re not starting from scratch in every place, where there is a sharing of information so that best practices can be expedited in different parts of the country.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for that. On those examples of synchronicity that you mentioned work well, how many examples are we talking about here that you can reference?
Mr. Walraven: As I think was mentioned the last time I had the pleasure of coming to this committee, with the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, which is the First Nations organization of northern Manitoba, we have a really great pilot project that the Government of Canada has been supporting through the Department of Justice Canada, whether it is dry community law enforcement or whether it is bylaw enforcement ranging from just speeding to other basic infractions.
We have these pilot initiatives that are showing that you can make sure everyone is on the same page about what needs to be enforced, what priorities are attributed to that and especially how prosecutions should work. In many cases, they are civil matters. It could be a ticketing or even a restorative justice approach that’s applied. There needs to be a collective conversation that often includes federal and provincial aspects of justice to make sure we have a coherent system.
That is the best locational example I can offer to the committee. I am from British Columbia. You are also seeing that in the context of modern treaties and self-government agreements, these types of conversations are taking foot there and in many other places.
I am looking forward in the months to come, understanding that in Ontario, the Mississauga First Nation has a particularly innovative approach with the Ontario Provincial Police.
There are places where this local conversation is showing that things can work better. It’s really important to aggregate that conversation and make sure we have a more wholesale discussion about how these things can work well within different provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. The time for this panel is complete. I again want to thank our witnesses for being here and for being onscreen with us. Thank you for your contributions. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions beyond what we’ve already requested, please do so and email them to the clerk by May 8.
(The committee adjourned.)