THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:48 p.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 persons participating to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Please make sure to keep your ear piece away from the microphones at all times. When you’re not using your ear piece, please place it face down on the sticker on the table for this purpose. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral, unceded territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. It’s now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I’m Senator Margo Greenwood. I’m from British Columbia, and I’m the deputy chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. In the absence of the chair, it’s my honour to chair this very important meeting today. I wish to invite committee members at this time to introduce themselves.
Senator Pate: Welcome to our witnesses. My name is Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
The Deputy Chair: At this time, I need to move a motion about quorum. Is it agreed, colleagues, that, notwithstanding usual practice, and pursuant to rule 12-17, the committee be authorized to hold today’s meeting without quorum if necessary for the purpose of receiving and publishing evidence, provided that three committee members are present? Do I have your agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried. Thank you.
I wish to welcome all of you as well as people across Canada who may be watching us on ParlVu. We are meeting today to study the government’s 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 this panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming by video conference: Sara Mainville, Managing Partner, JFK Law LLP; and Chief Tonya Perron, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. Welcome to you both, and thank you 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 the senators. I now invite Ms. Mainville to give her opening remarks, followed by Chief Perron. Ms. Mainville, the floor is yours.
Sara Mainville, Managing Partner, JFK Law LLP: Thank you.
[Indigenous language spoken.]
My Anishinaabemowin name means “Flying Around Thunderbird” woman. I am from the Bear Clan and a member of Couchiching First Nation in Treaty 3 territory, or Manito Aki.
I am a senior lawyer and partner at JFK Law LLP, a national Aboriginal law firm with offices in Toronto, Montreal, Kahnawà:ke, Vancouver and Victoria. Meegwetch for having me here at the Senate to speak about the Cannabis Act and the impact it has had on Indigenous Peoples, communities and governments.
Speaking about inherent jurisdiction, Indigenous Peoples have been managing resources and fulfilling their obligations to the land, waters and all creation since time immemorial. These obligations are not frozen in time but instead have meant managing resources as they arise in our communities, including when cannabis and cannabis products were legalized in October 2018.
I’ve worked with communities, such as Membertou First Nation, which is currently working on a draft cannabis law and engaging with the community despite tobacco tax enforcement happening on their reserve lands and cannabis act enforcement happening across Mi’kma’ki. I have also helped the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, who had an interim cannabis law before legalization on October 17, 2018, and created a more robust and concrete cannabis law through a 16-month community consultation process that resulted in a referendum in November 2019, but enforcement and administration being the clear gap that went against declaring the law operational amidst broad controversy and a number of cannabis stores opening that were unlicensed and without rules, despite a close “yes” vote.
In 2019, my own First Nation, Couchiching First Nation, authorized a legal cannabis store through a bylaw, and the operator was successfully operating despite having banks close his accounts and despite him having a licence from his First Nation. My community is consulting with the community to try to enact a more comprehensive inherent jurisdiction-based law, but they are wary of the gaps in legally available sources of product and the transportation issues of supply that may or may not be licensed to on-reserve stores. These communities are just a few examples of the exercise of inherent First Nations jurisdiction in relation to cannabis. The opportunity for economic pathways is being squandered in Canada.
I understand the work of the committee, and I’ve appeared before the Senate. A key theme of the final report that resulted from that inquiry was that First Nations want to be able to enforce cannabis laws on their lands. Many of my clients want to have licensed cultivation and processing facilities, which, of course, are federal jurisdiction, along with retail stores, which are provincial jurisdiction. We don’t have the friendliest environment for provincial relations in many of these regions in order to have partnered or worked together to have a clear solution in many of these provinces. Also, there has been a lack of investment or capacity to enjoy a highly regulated market in their territories.
I wonder if there’s any success for First Nations within this Cannabis Act regime, or if the success is all found outside of the regime in the assertion of rights by entrepreneurs on reserve. Sure, there are a handful of provincially licensed stores on reserve, as long as there’s a direct neighbouring municipal population that would be willing to travel to that First Nation as opposed to in the municipality, where there are already accessible stores with the same product.
Most of the success on reserve happens in the arena of tax avoidance, where settler populations go to stores on reserve for cheap gas, cigarettes and cannabis. It makes no sense to provide highly taxed cannabis products found within the Cannabis Act regime.
There are a number of issues these First Nations have to deal with because of the presence of unlicensed stores in the community and concerns about store owners. I’ve heard many of those concerns, working with Senator Dan Christmas in his community of Membertou. There are ready-made solutions. One of the solutions would be our proposal, which is that a cannabis regulation opens the doorway to license the old personal growers’ regime through medical cannabis solutions and have that grown-up grey market offer good examples of safe adult use cannabis supply to First Nations’ own cannabis retail stores. We’ve mocked up a copy of that regulation, and we can make that available to the Senate as well.
In my former appearance before the committee in 2022, I spoke about grey markets in First Nations and why these are so attractive to First Nations entrepreneurs. It has accessible opportunity, and it requires fairly little investment. This idea of self-governance is not something new. I’m sure the Senate has heard this around a lot of different subject areas, but for cannabis, there has to be a good opportunity to basically get out of the way and let First Nations regulate this important issue for themselves and by themselves, and allow for legal solutions for First Nations across Canada. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Chief Perron, the floor is yours.
Tonya Perron, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke[Indigenous language spoken.]
Greetings, Deputy Chair Greenwood and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to present before you this evening on the response of the Government of Canada to the report On the Outside Looking In: The Implementation of the Cannabis Act and its effects on Indigenous Peoples.
As mentioned, I am an elected chief for the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke and have been the lead on the cannabis file since January 2019.
The last seven and a half years have been extremely challenging for the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke and the community with respect to the legalization of cannabis and the subsequent implementation of the Cannabis Act and the Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Law. The fact is that, despite government commitments for continued engagement and actions to support Indigenous public health and education, public safety and enforcement, and economic development, for Kahnawà:ke, those have been empty commitments and actions for the most part.
Kahnawà:ke started out on the right track by enacting its own legislation, appointing an independent regulatory body known as the Kahnawà:ke Cannabis Control Board, and entered into a memorandum of understanding with Health Canada. As great as this all appeared, and despite the shared objectives of public health and public safety, we were not really treated on a nation-to-nation relationship basis, but rather, subject to continued paternalism, and we were expected to cooperate only according to already defined rules. In practice, it was merely a symbolic recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership, as our vision of a cannabis industry in our community was constantly met with opposition from both levels of government.
The following are just some examples that were encountered throughout and still continue today. Aside from the memorandum of understanding with Health Canada, everything else that followed was nothing more than a Groundhog Day of discussions. Reassurances from Health Canada that they would ensure assisting with the rollout of our system, even if the province didn’t work with us, never came to fruition. Despite the efforts that our Health Canada liaisons made and their real desire to find solutions, they were subject to their own limitations. This ended up translating into little or no help from Health Canada as a government department or from the government itself with the hurdles we were encountering with Quebec and with Canada Revenue Agency.
The legalization of cannabis has had an impact on our police services, our police force, the Kahnawá:ke Peacekeepers, who are responsible for enforcing the Cannabis Act, and our Kahnawá:ke Cannabis Control Law.
The investment made by both levels of government to fund police services barely stabilized First Nations police services to begin with. There have been no further investments for training or education. In fact, training for police in Quebec is extremely limited, especially training in English.
The government has not provided funding for Indigenous businesses working in or preparing to enter the cannabis industry. It’s very costly to apply for a cultivation or processing licence and then build out and operate. Without financial assistance for those businesses, how can we derive economic benefits? The licensees must comply with Canada Revenue Agency rules and pay excise duty, and that duty, I might add, is not shared with the First Nations.
Canada Revenue Agency is not flexible to the realities of First Nations. Applying CRA rules to Kahnawá:ke is not in line with a nation-to-nation relationship. Not much funding has been received, if any at all, for education and prevention. Yet, with the legalization of cannabis, there has been an increased normalization of its use, use among youth and use as a coping strategy for anxiety and sleep disorders. It is more frequently present as a contributing factor in mental health and substance use cases. If it really was a commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, we might have seen a different outcome all around.
In terms of recommendations, more funding is needed for education, prevention and data collection. That funding should be made directly to First Nations that have the capacity to carry that out. An actual meaningful nation-to-nation relationship approach is needed — not just rhetoric. Actual respect and application of the principles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are needed, paying particular attention to articles 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 38 and 39.
Amendments to the Cannabis Act and other acts are also needed. Finally, it is recommended that an Indigenous excise stamp for cultivators and processors located within First Nations territory be created where the money is remitted to the First Nation. These are just some recommendations that would show that the commitments are real.
In summary, the government has to do better to walk the talk and deal directly with First Nations, not through the provinces and not through advocacy groups, if it is truly committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship.
Thank you. I can take any questions that the committee may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to both of you. We will now open the floor to questions.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you to our witnesses. I’ll start with Ms. Mainville. I have a note that, in 2024, the provincial court of Nova Scotia issued a decision in the case of R. v. Marshall et al. rejecting an Aboriginal treaty rights defence in the case of people running an unlicensed cannabis shop on Millbrook First Nation. With that piece of information, I’m wondering if you can tell us a bit more about that case because it’s interesting for me to hear about case studies like this to see what the outcome was. I guess I’m asking if that case set a precedent at all that could impact the ability of First Nations to regulate sales of cannabis on their lands.
Ms. Mainville: As an Aboriginal rights lawyer, one of the last things I wanted was a cannabis defence to go up against a Cannabis Act because a full cannabis defence — senators, you may well know this — is a million-dollar defence to bring a section 35 Aboriginal rights case in front of a court. It’s very expensive.
In fact, what happened in R. v. Marshall et al. in the Nova Scotia court was that they asserted a right, but they didn’t evidence the right. They were not able to. In fact, that’s what the court remarked on. The court remarked on the fact that this wasn’t a case about a Van der Peet assertion, where there was evidence about historical expert reports on the continuing right to regulate cannabis in that community because that would have been very expensive. It was a mere assertion by the rights holder that they, in fact, had a treaty right to trade with the treaty.
In fact, it’s not necessarily a precedent. It’s basically a warning to everyone that if you are going to assert a section 35 right to ground your jurisdiction to simply opening up a store, it’s going to be very difficult. We work with the First Nations themselves, not individual rights holders, to assert that there’s a governance responsibility and authority to license and regulate these activities in order to bring the opportunity home. That is a more encouraging pathway and, hopefully, a pathway that Crown governments will also participate in.
As my friend from Kahnawá:ke discussed, they’ve been taking that journey and trying to work with Crown governments to make that pathway real for individual entrepreneurs, but individual entrepreneurs asserting a section 35 right is a very difficult and very expensive claim to make.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
Chief Perron, am I correct that your council has voted to effectively ban cannabis sales on reserve? If I’m correct in that, I’m curious about how enforcement works and if there are issues with illegal dispensaries. Or is the community small enough that people would know if that was happening? Am I correct on that, and what are the issues in doing that? If you could just explain a little bit more, you named the agency that handles policing in Kahnawá:ke. I can’t remember if you said “police” or if there was another word you used; maybe it was “protective services.” If you have time in this response, could you tell me a bit more about accessing resources for enforcement?
Ms. Perron: Thank you for the question. It’s the Kahnawá:ke Peacekeepers. That’s our police force.
In terms of the decision that was made by the council, because of the lapse in time, there have been some shifts, of course, with all the information being obtained from community members. There has been just a whole shift in things, so we had to revisit public policy. There was beginning to be a lot of push back on the retail portion, not on cultivation and processing so much. We still have two licensed operators here in the community, but we have imposed a prohibition. I don’t know if we called it a moratorium. I really can’t recall at the end of the day what we ended up calling it because we had discussions about a moratorium, but it’s no longer permissible. We worded it as “zero permits would be distributed,” because on public policy, we decided on the number of permits to be distributed, but then the board had to actually carry out the application process, so there are no retail licences.
In terms of enforcement, luckily, in a way, we have been able to maintain control over openings of dispensaries and any retail licences, overtly. It’s very well known here, as well as in many other communities, that there are a lot of things that are going on in some of the other retail types of locations under the table sales. Our peacekeepers, given all the other responsibilities they have, find it very difficult to follow up, investigate and then carry out what needs to be carried out to stop that. Much more money is needed just there alone because we’re still combatting the illegal market, since we don’t have a legal market here.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Ms. Mainville, I notice that, since 2018, and probably earlier than that, you’ve written about the importance of being able to build capacity in Indigenous communities. I don’t have experience in that in Indigenous communities, but I do have a perspective from when corrections legislation was passed in 1992. Several provisions were placed in the corrections legislation that would allow Indigenous communities, in particular, to take control of folks from their communities who were imprisoned or paroled.
After a period of time, corrections took that over, claiming that no communities had expressed an interest. Most communities didn’t even know it existed. They then regulated it in a way that precluded communities, as they became aware, from being able to take advantage of it.
Is that similar to what has happened here, or is it a different capacity issue? I noticed that you talked about the need for social equity. Those kinds of arguments have been raised. Certainly, some communities have been told that they don’t have the capacity to do the work in the corrections context. I am wondering if that is similar within this context.
Ms. Mainville: Right. For certain, there is a missed opportunity here. In the rollout of the legalization process, there definitely could have been much more substantive discussions in preparing First Nations to participate in the legalization of cannabis. For the most part, some people are probably relieved that they didn’t get involved with the cannabis industry because, in many ways, it has been an unsuccessful market for so many people.
First Nations saw it as an opportunity. A number of partners came forward, trying to get First Nations to participate. It is not like, for example, some provincial energy policies where having a First Nations partner would actually attract advantageous public policies and ensure more access for partner companies. There are many different things that we can look at, like what New York State, California or Oregon have done to try to have that social equity piece in the legalization of cannabis. That hasn’t happened. It hasn’t been for the lack of good ideas being brought forward by First Nations themselves.
One of the very interesting things is the medical cannabis overreach, over the cost of production, the cost of getting involved in this market and the false promise that the world would be your oyster if you could produce medical cannabis and provide it to the world community. That has not come to pass.
The answer here is to go back to that old Vancouver model. Think about how you can provide adult-use cannabis in a safe and productive way. First Nations have been doing that. It’s been a grey market, but has actually been quite successful. It is something that we’ve been looking at with First Nations governments. There are some really good actors, despite it being a grey market. They believe in cannabis and have believed in cannabis all along, but they can’t get into the production of this medical-quality cannabis because it is so expensive and does not produce the kind of cannabis that the original market wanted.
Senator Pate: Chief Perron, you mentioned the lack of supports that came, even though some officials were trying to assist. Were there other capacity issues or other ways or resources, from your perspective, that could have been provided to allow Kahnawà:ke to do things in a different manner and perhaps yield different results?
Ms. Perron: If we’d had the true cooperation of the province right out of the gate, where it wasn’t just the province saying, “You must have exactly what we have in your community,” and if we had started a lot sooner, we probably would have had a successful system in place at this point.
However, because of those challenges, we were left to deal with the Province of Quebec, and we were never able to get an agreement in place with them for legal products. We had to become creative, and we did. We figured out a way to still procure legal product.
The process for doing that was very lengthy. It would have been a lot quicker had the province just sat down and entered into an agreement with us. We had many conversations with the province, but that is all that they were: conversation after conversation after conversation to no end.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
If a First Nation wishes to restrict the cultivation or sale of cannabis, or wanted to eliminate certain retailers or prohibit access, what mechanisms would be available to you? That is for either one of you, please, or both of you.
Ms. Mainville: As an example, some provinces have allowed First Nations themselves to say that they would prohibit certain things. Ontario, for example, would respect a band council resolution that would prohibit cannabis sales within a First Nation community, as they also respect, for example, dry reserves that don’t allow alcohol into the communities. Many of the provinces look for that consent piece first.
Then they use inherent jurisdiction. For example, in Kahnawà:ke, the moratorium basically says, “We won’t allow any licences unless we are the licensing authority.” Our First Nations will not do licensing for a period of time or will restrict licensing to certain areas. That’s all within inherent jurisdiction, so it is within the law. Our advice is always to think about the five objectives in the federal Cannabis Act and to conform to some of that, but also to look at their own concerns. That is usually the extra layer that many First Nations have when they use their own policy to create their own legislation or even an Indian Act bylaw.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Chief Perron, would you like to respond as well?
Ms. Perron: Yes. In Kahnawà:ke, we enacted our own cannabis control law. It was enacted through our community legislative process. Currently, obviously, it allows for cultivation and processing, but some additional pieces in our legislation will ensure that the locations are appropriate and that the resources, such as water, are not being subject to abuse, et cetera.
The MOU with Health Canada was helpful because, before they would issue a licence for cultivation or processing, they would coordinate, collaborate and discuss it with our cannabis control board. Both sides would ensure that all the rules applicable to each were being followed.
If there was anyone who should not be granted a licence, and it was not according to Health Canada rules but it was according to our rules, the MOU would allow Health Canada to respect that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
What has been the experience of First Nations in bylaw enforcement by the RCMP? Do you have any reflections in this regard or on store closures within First Nations by the RCMP?
Ms. Perron: Thank you for the question. As stated earlier, we have our own police force, the Kahnawà:ke Peacekeepers. They have sole jurisdiction over our territory. The RCMP and the provincial police do not set foot on our territory without following a protocol, which is in very limited circumstances and is usually to assist with an investigation for a murder or something, where our police force does not have the necessary resources. They will reach out to them. But if there were any illegal dispensaries or anything, that would be under the peacekeepers here.
Ms. Mainville: An active conflict is happening now in Mi’kma’ki in Nova Scotia because there is RCMP enforcement after the miscalibration of what to do after that Marshall decision you mentioned. It is really bad reconciliation policy to not be working with the First Nations leadership in Nova Scotia to find the right solution in the case of cannabis law enforcement.
The community I am working with isn’t policed by the RCMP. They work with the municipal police force, and they have a specific agreement about police enforcement with them. They recognize that the community is trying to create their own jurisdiction and their own law, and there will be compliance with rules by those dozen or more cannabis stores in that community. So there is no enforcement happening there because there is a First Nation solution. I think the best step forward is to let the First Nations leadership take the lead.
In other places, as far as specifically bylaw enforcement, there is hit and miss in different regions where there is a provincial police force or an agreed police force through the federal government or some special arrangement with the federal government. The lack of resources is also fundamentally the most pragmatic barrier to the enforcement of First Nation bylaws and First Nation authority because of the amount of stress and lack of resources for those police forces just to do the real serious stuff, like criminal law enforcement and other things of that nature.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Sorensen: I have another question. It will be directed to Ms. Mainville again.
Not to take away from our next panel, but as I’m reviewing the notes, I see that your firm is doing some work with the Honourable Dan Christmas on his initiative with Membertou.
Again, not to take from his testimony, but from your perspective in working with him and the process that they are working on in that area, maybe you could speak at a high level to the process and what your role will be in that process.
Ms. Mainville: Yes. I think it is a very well-thought-out exercise of jurisdiction by Membertou that is facilitated by Dan Christmas, who is very well liked across the board.
Recently, we met with cannabis store owners and heard their concerns about the exercise of jurisdiction by Membertou and the law and making sure that the law that will be put in place, taking into account their interests and concerns.
We heard how they were, in fact, very open to common rules. There are some impacts with a number of stores. For example, at one time, there were 30 stores in Membertou, and there were impacts on traffic in the community because these are all inside neighbourhoods. One of the common rules they are thinking about is whether they should be open before the school bus leaves the community to make sure that the school bus run happens before they open up their stores.
There is an openness about things like that, which makes sense to everyone, and that’s what the exercise of jurisdiction will be. It will be a win-win for everyone to deal with community concerns about things like traffic and safety, but it will also ensure that there is opportunity in the cannabis industry that was promised so long ago, and allow the opportunity to maybe become even bigger by Membertou getting involved. In that region, everyone knows that Membertou is an economic powerhouse, and it has the capability of doing bigger and better things for the community.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for that. He is probably listening, so it is good you said nice things.
Ms. Mainville: I have a very high regard for Senator Dan Christmas.
Senator Sorensen: As do we.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed.
I will take this opportunity to thank you both for attending today. Thank you for your testimony. It was very informative.
The time for this panel is complete. If you have any other information that you would like to submit to us on this report, please email them to the clerk. He will be collecting all of that information. Thank you.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Please welcome, at the table, Carol Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer, Thunderbird Partnership Foundation; and via video conference, our former colleague the Honourable Dan Christmas. Thank you both for being here and joining us virtually.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
Ms. Hopkins, the floor is yours.
Carol Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer, Thunderbird Partnership Foundation: [Indigenous language spoken.]
I am Carol Hopkins of the Delaware Nation in southwestern Ontario. I come from the Wolf Clan. I live and work at the Delaware Nation, which is the host community to the head office of the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation. Thank you for the invitation.
My opening remarks focus on mental wellness in the post‑legalization of cannabis. One of the key points I would like to offer and be prepared to talk about further is polysubstance use.
Our data tells us there has been an increase in cannabis use amongst adults and youth. Certainly, from the pandemic, we saw that increase begin substantially, and it’s held across time since the pandemic.
It’s difficult to understand the impacts of cannabis because most adults use with other substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, opioids or methamphetamine.
But we do know that parental cannabis shows the most responsible use. It’s characterized by having children, but also having legal issues attached to the care and right to parent their children is curbing cannabis use. There’s still cannabis use present, but it’s not as prominent and not as frequently used.
We also understand that cannabis is used as an element of harm reduction. We know that, in the legalization of cannabis, there were quite a number of concerns amongst First Nations on the access to medical cannabis.
There were trials of using medical cannabis to support withdrawals from opioids and methamphetamines; however, those efforts were not sustainable because of a lack of resources to continuously purchase cannabis for maintaining the prescription for cannabis. While people did have access to funds to support the prescription, it did show beneficial in the reduction in the use of opioids and methamphetamine.
Through COVID-19, we learned a lot about cannabis use and the potential risks: how cannabis plays a role in the patterns and experiences of First Nations, and addressing environmental emergencies. “Environmental emergencies” means floods, fires, wildfire smoke and evacuation from communities. Cannabis is used as a way of coping.
Since legalization — the last time I presented on post‑legalization — we’ve also learned about the incidence of trauma experiences amongst First Nations who present for treatment to address the substance-use challenges they face, and that complex trauma underpins cannabis use even when cannabis use appears to be harmful.
There are more frequent anecdotes of individuals presenting in emergency for what is known as “cannabis hyperemesis.” First Nations indicate the need for more educational resources across the community. They identified the number and type of resources that are most useful to them.
Today, in a discussion around the First Nations Metal Wellness Continuum Framework, First Nations youth reported that it isn’t just one type and source of information. They did recognize the prominence of social media and the use of the internet to access resources, but they said that, due to the digital capacity of many First Nations communities, print resources that are widely distributed around the community are also very helpful: key messages and other things like that.
First Nations don’t always have funding for public health resources. Support for First Nations and public health is always necessary to continue providing resources to First Nations around prevention.
The Thunderbird Partnership Foundation is advocating for more community-based intervention. One of the most prominent evidence bases for addressing cannabis is counselling. But we know that counselling services need to be from the foundation of Indigenous culture and knowledge.
Those are my opening remarks. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hopkins.
The Honourable Dan Christmas, you have the floor.
The Honourable Dan Christmas, former senator, as an individual: Thank you for the opportunity to address the community again on the implementation of the Cannabis Act and its effects on Indigenous Peoples.
In my opening remarks, I wish to focus on one outstanding item that has troubled members of this committee since the act was first considered in 2018, and that is the ability for First Nations to regulate the distribution, sale and possession of cannabis on First Nations lands.
During APPA’s pre-study of the original bill, the committee heard from many First Nations witnesses who repeatedly raised this issue. APPA’s pre-study report commented:
The Committee strongly believes that under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Indigenous peoples have the inherent right of self-determination, including the appropriate law-making authority to make meaningful decisions that affect the lives of their people and communities, including regulating cannabis.
The report’s policy recommendations No. 2 and No. 3 encouraged the Government of Canada to recognize section 35 rights and Articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, to respect the rights of Indigenous communities to establish their own cannabis laws.
Despite written assurances to APPA in a letter dated June 6, 2018, by the Minister of Health Ginette Petitpas and the Minister of Indigenous Services Jane Philpott that “. . . the Government recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of Indigenous communities,” no meaningful action has been taken by the government.
The government, in its response to the pre-study report, also referenced the minister’s letter and “. . . reaffirmed its commitment to uphold existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
I noted that in the government’s current response to APPA’s On the Outside Looking In report, it admits that the Cannabis Act does not permit Indigenous governments to regulate cannabis in the same way as federal and provincial-territorial governments. It further cites the expert panel’s 2024 report and its conclusion that:
. . . the Act’s lack of recognition of jurisdiction and authority as an omission that is inconsistent with the principles of self-determination and reconciliation.
Clearly, the Cannabis Act has failed to accommodate First Nations’ jurisdiction to regulate the health, safety and well-being of their communities as it relates to cannabis. Further, I would argue that the government has also failed to harmonize the Cannabis Act with the UNDRIP Act of 2021, and, in particular, with Articles 3 and 4, where it recognizes Indigenous People’s right to self-determination.
Madam Chair, I wish to propose an amendment to the Cannabis Act. I propose that the following section be included in the act:
The inherent right of self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, includes jurisdiction in relation to health, safety and well‑being, including legislative authority in relation to those services pertaining to cannabis and authority to administer and enforce laws made under that legislative authority.
If this clause sounds familiar to some of you, it certainly should. My proposed amendment is modelled after section 18(1) of the An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families of 2019. As you’re aware, in February 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the constitutionality of this act, and specifically, the recognition of Indigenous self-government over child welfare.
I would strongly encourage this committee to adopt an amendment to the act that clearly and explicitly recognizes the inherent right of self-government over cannabis. The government may argue that its preference is for First Nations to develop agreements with provincial and territorial governments. Some provinces have, but not all.
In Nova Scotia, as my colleague Sara Mainville has mentioned, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs has repeatedly sought to work cooperatively with the Province of Nova Scotia under the regulation of cannabis on First Nation lands, but to no avail. Rather, the Province of Nova Scotia has directed the RCMP to shut down First Nations cannabis retailers by force.
Since March 3, the RCMP has raided at least eight First Nation stores, and, in the process, the province’s hardline approach has put in jeopardy the once-collaborative relationship between the assembly and the Province of Nova Scotia. Several Nova Scotia First Nations have already asserted their inherent right by enacting their own legislation on cannabis. I am currently assisting my own home community of Membertou by leading a community engagement process on its proposed cannabis law. I strongly believe that First Nations have the right to enact their own laws in matters relating to their health, safety and well-being, including the regulation of cannabis.
Wela’lioq.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both. I will now open the floor to the senators for questions.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and welcome to both of our witnesses. It’s especially nice to see my former seatmate here. Thank you so much for all of your ongoing work.
Thank you for the recommendation of an amendment that could be recommended by the committee to the Canadian government. You may have heard that a number of us are extremely concerned about the lack of substantive response by the government to the report that was done by this committee.
I’m wondering if there are any other issues that you would like to raise that you are underscoring that might assist in the process. I can attest to being on the committee when those recommendations were made, where the situation you’re facing is exactly what you and the former Senator Sinclair also foreshadowed, sadly. If there are any other recommendations you could make, that would be great.
Ms. Hopkins, thank you so much for your work. I’m interested as well in what kinds of recommendations we could make to assist with some of the social, health and economic issues as well that your community is facing. That’s for both of you, actually. Perhaps if we could start with former Senator Christmas.
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Senator Pate. It’s great to be among you again. It has been a while. It’s a pleasure to talk about these issues again with you.
It has been a while since the act was enacted, and a lot of the issues we discussed way back in the pre-study, and a lot of the concerns we had and a lot of the worries we had, unfortunately, have come about.
The original Cannabis Act was silent on Indigenous self‑government. We found out that there was, at the time, a woeful lack of meaningful consultation with First Nations. It was as if the original Cannabis Act was deliberately implemented to have minimal involvement with Indigenous Peoples.
You may recall that, at one point during our pre-study, we visited a First Nation in the Yukon called Old Crow. Their position was that they had banned cannabis in their community. This Cannabis Act basically allowed it to come into the community against their wishes. So it’s just a lack of understanding and appreciation for how communities governed themselves. It was not appreciated.
It has continued on to this day in 2026. After eight long years, we’re still dealing with the same issue. Some issues are worse. Still, the position of the government is that there are only two laws that you need to follow: one is the Cannabis Act, and the second is the provincial acts on cannabis. There is no mention at all of the First Nations’ ability to look after themselves, especially when it comes to health and safety.
I find it utterly unbelievable that in, this day and age, we fail to recognize that community-based solutions — when people come together, talk about these issues and come to a consensus on how to deal with them — carry more weight than any federal and provincial law. That’s the approach we’ve been pursuing here in Membertou. We’ve been working with the community for a year and a half. We’re doing another round of engagement, and we’ll continue doing those rounds until we have developed a strong consensus about how to manage ourselves.
That approach will guarantee that the law will be respected by all. The community approach, I believe, is the right way. Just enforcing top-down laws has been a game that First Nations have played for a long time. We just learn to avoid them, not deal with it and ignore it. I don’t think that’s the way to do cannabis in our communities.
We need to respect what this provides in terms of health, and we need to respect the danger it also brings. We have to respect safety. We have to harmonize some of our standards, as Ms. Mainville mentioned earlier. We’re developing some common rules, and those common rules, I am certain, will lead us to a place where the entire community feels safe, and that we’re doing this the healthy way. It will allow our entrepreneurs to earn a living through it, while, at the same time, respecting all of the other things.
But the track we’re on — just ignoring self-determination and self-government — is not a solution. Your committee, in responding to the latest government response, needs to start thinking about concrete amendments. Maybe the one I proposed isn’t the one that our legal people think is most appropriate, but we have to start somewhere. I just know the Child Welfare Act has made a huge step forward in developing their own laws, and I thought by modelling that, at least the government could have faith or confidence in First Nations that this is the next big step.
Thank you, Senator Pate, for asking that question. I had a lot to share with you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Ms. Hopkins: One of the things that comes to mind as I listened to my colleague Dan Christmas in answering your question is not something I originally thought about talking about in my presentation. I’m thinking back to pre-legalization and the conversations I was asked to support amongst First Nations communities across the country. There’s a very different understanding about economic development and wealth creation, so communities that were having conversations with their communities heard from community members about the interest in economic development, but it was individual wealth creation.
There was no intention, or there was no understanding, or there was no foundation for thinking about communal wealth and economic development. The impact of increased traffic in the community on public safety and on maintaining public infrastructure such as roads was not part of the conversation. That’s because individuals who live in poverty are thinking about what they can create to sustain their own livelihood. We’re still in that time, and we’re still in that gap, so when communities said, we’re voting to ban cannabis in our communities, then the First Nation engaged public safety to reinforce that policy of the community.
Other communities that did not have those conversations had community members who went ahead and established retail for cannabis. Now, when community government, the Chief and council, tried to implement community bylaws or mechanisms to control or facilitate getting permission for cannabis retail shops, they were met with resistance from the community. Some communities felt as though they had no power: Community members who went ahead with cannabis retail were just stuck with that situation. In some places, Chief and council called in public safety and policing again to reinforce this situation, which amounts to criminalizing people. They don’t have rights under federal or provincial legislation to act in either growing or selling cannabis, so First Nations People are then in a situation where there’s over-surveillance and criminalization when they’re trying to facilitate economic development.
There has been a conversation in Canada about decriminalizing personal use of substances, which didn’t get passed. In the evidence put forward in studies prior to legalization, the gold-standard evidence said that populations who have high rates of trauma and psychosis, or are diagnosed with depression or mood disorders, are at greater risk for dependency. Well, that fits a First Nations lens, so we knew the impact of unregulated cannabis use. But we don’t know the potency of THC, which is potentially harmful to young people, as well as adults who are using or who have mood disorders and anxiety disorders. Yet, post-legalization, we’ve seen the rates of cannabis use increase as a negative way of coping because there are no other resources to address substance use in the community. First Nations communities are funded for prevention-level services, not for intervention-level services.
In order to get support for addressing mood disorders, anxiety, depression and unresolved trauma, these people have to leave their communities to go some place else. The community is not funded by public health resources. That was a main point we made early on: Public health resources are absolutely necessary for communities to be able to provide prevention, health promotion and early intervention services, but there is no continuum of care for substance use among First Nations people in Canada. That’s because it relies on provincial services that don’t always see a relationship with First Nations or the responsibility to fund community-based intervention. The federal government makes it very clear that it is not responsible for community-based intervention that requires professions like physicians or nurse practitioners.
First Nations are then left in a vacuum because, when First Nations people have to leave their community to seek support for substance-use issues, they’re then in an urban environment where they typically find their best friend to be gangs, for example. We also know that First Nations people have a pattern of always going home, then back to the city, coming home, then back to the city. So it increases public safety issues again for the community because now we have the presence of that environment and First Nations. Cannabis is part of the story. It’s not the only issue that people are facing, but this us-and-them difference in the application of law or in the application of health for First Nations people. There are different systems at play here.
We’re a population of people who are over-surveilled. We have more difficulty accessing culturally appropriate services; we have more difficulty accessing culturally based services at home, where we live. Having to go into urban environments to access services does not always mean that you get through the door of the most appropriate service.
Where communities have made the decision to support cannabis retail — and this is the point that Dan also made — when those communities have conversations with the population and make decisions based on that conversation, they have more compliance and more buy-in to culturally appropriate services. But when there’s a divide, and the perception is not one of harm reduction or one of understanding — cannabis being used instead of opioids or methamphetamine or as a way to withdraw from those substances — then it becomes a challenge between communities and individuals who are using cannabis but also purchasing unregulated cannabis without the knowledge of THC.
In Canada’s low-risk cannabis use guidelines, it speaks to the regulation of potency and knowing what the potency of cannabis is. It’s not exact, but you have a better idea than you would when buying cannabis without regulation present.
It’s a double-edged sword, because, as I said, some communities support economic development, but it’s a benefit to individuals, and there’s no thought for how the sale of cannabis in a community supports community operations in public health, public safety and public infrastructure, or the mental health and wellness of First Nations.
Mental wellness seems to be optional for First Nations in Canada. We just recently heard about the investment in mental wellness for First Nations at the end of the fiscal year, when communities are worrying about whether they keep this staff or whether they are leaving because they’re looking for more permanency in their income. In this environment, there are not a lot of resources to support a community in addressing the impacts of cannabis, unfortunately.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you both for being here. Nice to see you, Dan.
I’m finding this fascinating, and I don’t mean any disrespect when I start to talk about a municipality, because there are no comparisons between Indigenous communities and municipalities. But in Alberta, where I live, the province handed responsibility for cannabis retail to the municipalities. At the time that this passed, I happened to be the mayor of the town where I lived, and when you talk about community conversation, I would call that a public hearing.
What came out of that in the town I’m in, and many others, just to talk about some of the things you’re trying to implement and the process that you are going through, Mr. Christmas, where will cannabis retail be permitted? That is outlined.
Separation distances between cannabis stores or buffer zones: One cannabis store couldn’t be too close to another cannabis store. Visibility, in terms of what you can see from the street in terms of what the product is, and, obviously, an application process for development permits. We also don’t allow smoking anywhere in public: cigarettes, vaping or cannabis. There’s no smoking on public streets. Operating hours come into play, et cetera, et cetera.
We had the authority to put many rules in place, not the least of which, by the way, is distance from a playground, a school, et cetera. All of those rules in a small space allowed for very few stores because of the spatial distance.
I now feel very grateful for having that authority in the communities. I understand that B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed similar processes, whereas in other provinces, the province has maintained control over municipalities.
Using that as an example, Mr. Christmas — I know that was a lot of rules — are those similar types of guidelines that you are considering? Maybe you could give me examples of some of the guidelines that you are trying to put in place in your community.
I’m also very interested in the decisions of Chief and councils and community conversations. I know a municipality in my world operates very differently, and I respect that.
Ms. Hopkins, do you see these rules as helpful in terms of the concerns that you have aired and continue to advocate for?
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Senator Sorensen. I really appreciate your example of how municipalities help to create a good environment for the cannabis industry to properly take its place.
Unfortunately, in my community, because there was no authority or jurisdiction allowed for First Nations, it was basically unregulated. Cannabis retailers in my community had no rules to follow. At one point, we had as many as 30 cannabis retailers in a very small community, and many of those retailers were located in residential areas.
Since there were no rules, they were located adjacent to playgrounds, schools and bus stops. I remember one meeting we had with our youth here, and they described how, in the morning, they were dodging traffic heading to the cannabis stores while they were going to the bus stop.
We basically had an unregulated industry at the beginning. It was because of those issues and all of the community problems that arose that we did this backwards. Retailers have been operating unregulated now for about five years in our community, and now we’re catching up. We’re trying to work with our community, Chief and council and retailers to try our best to come up with a common set of rules after the fact to find consensus in those areas.
We still operate in an unregulated environment. I envy you where municipalities had that authority and the ability to create rules that could assist the community. We’re now doing this after the fact. It is difficult and hard, but it is not impossible.
Sara will tell you that we are making a lot of progress, and the development of common rules has been surprisingly welcomed; we have a role there.
The point I’m making with regard to the difference between provinces, municipalities and First Nations is that provinces and municipalities — in Alberta’s case, municipalities were given the jurisdiction — were allowed to exercise their community standards on how the industry should develop and grow. We had no such opportunity.
It was left silent and blank, and industry basically flourished without anything. Now, after the fact, we’re trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you so much. So you are the “Wild West” out there.
Mr. Christmas: The “Wild East.”
Senator Sorensen: Yes, exactly. Ms. Hopkins?
Ms. Hopkins: It’s a similar story across First Nations where their members have established retail shops quite closely together — right next door, in fact. They have bright neon signs, flashing lights, sales and discounts. All the different types of cannabis — shatter, vaping and edibles — are all advertised on the signs at the road. Again, there are no considerations for public health measures. What is public health? Public health theory and practice match, align with and represent holistic approaches from a cultural Indigenous world view, and they know it.
However, how to apply it in the context of cannabis, there weren’t many resources. Chief and councils who are advocating with government to obtain the rights that Mr. Christmas laid out didn’t have other resources at home to facilitate conversations on public health and how to implement measures or how to engage with the folks in the community who established these stores.
At one time at Thunderbird Partnership Foundation, we had conversations about the possibility of implementing a survey on cannabis. In fact, we did implement a survey on cannabis: one designed for adults and another designed for youth. But it was hard to get uptake on that.
We offered incentives to First Nations people who were operating a cannabis shop saying, “Are you aware that cannabis has this potential impact on youth or how it affects mood disorders?” They were not aware or they didn’t admit to knowing anything about that. In fact, they cited having a number of First Nations customers who bought cannabis specifically for their depression, specifically for their anxiety, believing that cannabis would help that.
We said that we could develop some public health resources with their input and an understanding of the population that they serve, but we couldn’t get any buy-in.
We tried to market to parents and schools to gather data on cannabis, understanding within community about cannabis, its impacts and how we could design public health materials, but communities who did not understand harm reduction were black and white: “We don’t want cannabis here, so we don’t want to educate on cannabis,” again, not understanding harm reduction or a public health approach.
The belief was, “If we talk about it and what it means, aren’t you just encouraging it?” There is a lot of education to do and many things that we have learned since legalization. This idea that you have let the genie out of the bottle doesn’t mean that you can’t have the conversations.
Even when the community is reluctant to have those conversations, approaching it from a different angle about the criminalization of people who have health conditions and need resources to address those health conditions, like substance dependency, those people who are presenting in emergency all the time, what is the cost-benefit analysis between people and what it costs the health care system for people who have cannabis hyperemesis? They are vomiting and throwing up and have extreme stomach pain.
What does it cost the health care system to see that individual in emergency over and over again because they can’t manage the pain, only to be told that the best remedy is to stop using cannabis? Never mind the underpinning reasons why they are using cannabis; just stop using. That doesn’t work for anyone, First Nations nor non-first Nations. So we’re not concerned about the costs to the health care system.
Then the other answer given is that if you’re not going to stop using, go home and take a hot shower. Let the hot water run on your stomach. It will eventually soothe the discomfort that you’re experiencing.
I wonder about those answers to First Nations and how cannabis plays a role in the ability of young people to live a good life. How does it play a role in their wellness? Why is it that we don’t investigate the solutions? I ask because First Nations have them.
I don’t know that rules will make a big difference, but the conversations about the rules that matter come from a cultural lens. I know some First Nations people will claim that harm reduction does not match with their culture, but it is. I say that because there is nothing in our culture, teachings or culture‑based practices that says it’s okay to just let somebody suffer or to discard people. It’s not okay.
The idea of mental wellness for First Nations people has to be a starting place and a building up. Some organizations in Canada have championed public health resources for Indigenous health, but there just is not enough. It is an ongoing conversation. It is not just a one-time act or a one-time event where you’re having conversations and developing resources. It has to be ongoing because the workforce turns over. Our Chiefs and councils change all the time.
When Chief and council don’t have capacity to reinforce their bylaws or reinforce community-based decisions, then they are left without any resources except to call on police, who may or may not respond to what they are seeing. It might be an issue in the community.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question for Ms. Hopkins. Please, Mr. Christmas, you can respond as well.
I would like to hear you speak a little bit more — just because we’ve been hearing so much about this recently — about the effects of cannabis use on youth mental health. It has been a big topic around mental health. It has been a huge topic, particularly around young people, and I’ve certainly been hearing a lot about that. Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Then, Mr. Christmas, if you could share some observations or understandings from your community, that would be great as well.
Ms. Hopkins?
Ms. Hopkins: Data specific to First Nations youth that I will refer to are primarily from a national system that we call the Addictions Management Information System. That system is used by 10 First Nations-governed treatment centres for youth across the country. More and more communities are signing on to use that case management system.
It was difficult to implement our desire for a cannabis survey in community because parental consent was required in schools, for example. But when youth enter into residential treatment for any substance use, consent is gained, and so it’s easier to collect data.
Youth entering treatment are showing, as I said, an increasing use of cannabis: Around 88% of youth entering treatment for substances use cannabis. That’s up from 80% back in 2021-22.
That might not seem substantial, but we also know the impact of cannabis on, as I said, mood disorders and depression and anxiety. That, in the environment of disproportionate rates of suicide amongst First Nations youth, Inuit youth and the Canadian public, is substantial. If cannabis increases the likelihood of depression and anxiety for youth who are already contemplating suicide, or who have attempted suicide, then we’re making the situation worse.
One of the most prominent differences for First Nations youth is that they are also using cannabis because of complex trauma. Complex trauma means events and experiences that are endemic, intergenerational, existing across community and for the whole family. These youth report having seven to nine complex experiences at any one time when they are entering treatment.
They are experiencing the suicides of friends or losing people who die by taking their own lives or they themselves have attempted it. Their parents have been in residential schools. They’ve not had access to counselling. There are things like food insecurity and being either homeless or houseless, no schools in their communities, the lack of determinants of health, and no access to education unless they want to leave the community. They then live in a group home environment or perhaps live in an environment that is not culturally suitable, where they potentially face racism.
Studies of group home living environments have proven that group-home parents will lock their cupboards so that kids who live there in order to access education do not have free access to food. Only when the house parent provides access, do they have food.
These environments are not conducive to mental wellness. For First Nations youth, you have to consider the determinants of health: what they have access to and what they don’t. You have to consider the trauma that transcends generations.
In First Nations languages, when we ask speakers who are fluent in First Nations languages how they translate “complex trauma” in their own language, there is no direct translation. But they will speak about pain and suffering. There are concepts that convey a meaning around pain and suffering.
As they explain that concept, what they are talking about inherent in the meaning of that concept is a belief that pain and suffering are temporary. They are temporary because if you have language and culture, then you have extended family; if you have extended family, you have access to land and ceremony; so then you have access to resources that uphold your mental wellness.
However, those things were eroded through colonization. Therefore, now we have a thin foundation to stand on. Language and culture have not disappeared amongst First Nations in Canada, but they are hard to access.
The idea that pain and suffering are not permanent and can be addressed through our language, our knowledge and our own culture-based practices means that we have an opportunity to do something about that pain and suffering. When we have no resources, when we have no appreciation and we’re still fighting epistemic racism, then culture and language are not the foundations of our health care services.
When we invest in health, from an Indigenous perspective, then we build up the foundation that helps to support the realization that pain and suffering are temporary. As long as we do not invest in that, we continue to have intergenerational trauma that is compounded by the experiences of First Nations youth every day. It is complex. It is not just about the past; it is about what they experience today.
The Deputy Chair: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you know, our Cannabis Act makes it illegal for any person under the age of 19 to possess and use cannabis. That being said, it is pretty obvious in my community and other communities that young people are getting access to cannabis quite easily, actually. It may be family members who are cannabis users, and the product is lying there in the house. Or we heard one story of some high school students from our community telling us that there are adults who purchase cannabis products in large quantities and then go and resell them in parking lots. They even go to high schools and resell cannabis there. There is a lot of access.
There is some evidence — I’m sure Ms. Hopkins can elaborate more on this — that there is a very detrimental impact of cannabis use on young people, especially with their growing physical and mental capacities. It does have long-term impacts. I’m always keeping my ear open to hear the latest studies. Legalization only happened in the last eight years. What is the long-term impact of routine or regular cannabis use on young people? What happens to them when they become adults or reach their twenties? I suspect there is an impact, but unless we see those studies, we will have to continue projecting that.
In our discussions with some of our entrepreneurs, they were very adamant about one rule, which was the rule that they would not sell to persons under 19. It is quite routine. They do ID checks in the same way they do for tobacco, but I know that is not enough.
Another suggestion that came from a neighbouring First Nation community was that they distribute lock boxes to every household so that adults can hide or secure cannabis products in homes so that you can avoid accidental ingestion. Accidental ingestion is a very real danger.
Some of the cannabis products have the same packaging as chocolate bars, gummies, candies or drinks. Unless you read the label, you wouldn’t know that the product was infused with cannabis. So somebody could see a chocolate bar lying on the counter, think nothing of it, and, before you know it, they are in the emergency room.
So it is a huge concern. I worry about that. That is one of the issues that is not talked about. I heard one story of a teacher basically saying that, yes, it is pretty obvious that that little boy or girl in my classroom is on cannabis.
If you report that, the danger is that the person will be put into care. Do you want to separate a child from their family because of accidental cannabis use? Those are some of the difficult questions that keep coming up. There is no easy answer to that.
Obviously, there is a law in place prohibiting that. But there are still people in this world who either deliberately or accidentally cause our children to be negatively impacted by cannabis.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to both of our witnesses. We have exhausted our questions from the senators this evening. The time for this panel is complete. I want to thank you both, again, for being here.
If you have other things that you would like to submit to us — other comments or things that occur to you when you leave — please submit them by email to the clerk, and then they can be included in our report.
That brings us to the end of our meeting today. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)