Finance Committee on Nov. 7th, 2018

[Katherine Scott]

We have a recommendation that we submitted to the finance committee this past August or September on the amount of monies that we're recommending to invest in Status of Women Canada to ensure a vibrant and extensive mandate. It's $100 million per annum.

Obviously, a good chunk of this supports the department in its work but also the vitality and impact of their community grants and contributions, which are actually just now having, through projects and funding, an important impact right now as organizations are working again with this funding. Our proposal was to increase the funding for the department to $100 million per year in light of its new responsibilities, which now have obviously been expanded under this act.

Sir, was that the plan, the recommendation?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

[Katherine Scott]

Yes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

My next question is to Canada Without Poverty.

I found it very interesting that you talked about an adequate standard of living, because it's something we talk about. I represent the Northwest Territories. For us in the north, trying to live to the Canadian standards is a real challenge. I certainly can relate to the issues that you have brought forward. I represent a riding with many small aboriginal communities. We just completed a study on suicide in our smaller communities.

One of the things we heard was that the issue of housing was causing many challenges. Studies have shown that if we could solve the housing issue, we would solve probably 50% of our social challenges. Now that rings true also with poverty. There is a connection there. I wanted to hear a little more on your views on how poverty affects the lives of a great many Canadians across the country, and I think it's maybe even more so in some of the small aboriginal communities.

[Harriett McLachlan]

I can't speak for all people who are poor in this country. I can speak to my experience as an educated professional living 35 years in poverty, 19 years as a single parent. It was an enormous struggle, only being able to live in dilapidated housing that had rats in my living space and my kids' beds and making impossible choices between paying half my rent or half my hydro.

I'm a white, able-bodied Canadian-born person who has the ability to articulate these things. How much more difficult is it for someone who doesn't have the privilege that I had, even in my poverty, and how marginalized they are in smaller communities, as you are saying?

I think that—and I'm sure Leilani will speak more to this—if my housing issue with my rats and if I didn't have to live with violent neighbours.... I didn't have a bedroom of my own. I slept on the couch. If just my housing had been taken care of, I think that would have alleviated a lot of stress. I think it would help provide nutritious food on the table for my children. It's critical that housing be taken care of, but it's only one aspect of many issues that affect poverty. It's food, employment, ability, disability. It's all these complexities that come together depending on where you live in the country, but if one element was attended to, such as housing, I think it would make an enormous difference.

[Leilani Farha]

I'm here in my capacity as executive director of Canada Without Poverty, but I am also the UN special rapporteur on the right to housing. Maybe I could speak to you afterward about my concerns, extreme and deep concerns, about housing conditions for indigenous peoples across the country, both on reserve, off reserve, in cities, etc. It is, I think, one of the number one issues that we have to deal with.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

You have the best stage in the country right now. You could make the recommendations. Feel free.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're a little over time, but go ahead and make your point. Then we'll go to Mr. Julian for three minutes, because we were late starting.

[Leilani Farha]

I don't have recommendations because I'm not in a position to make those recommendations right now and here. As rapporteur, I have not visited the communities and done an assessment, but I do intend to do something on that issue. That's why I was suggesting perhaps we could speak afterwards.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, you have three minutes for the final question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Yussuff, Madame Smallman and Madame Desjardins. We appreciate receiving your amendments. I'm hoping they will be integrated into the legislation.

One element that I want to flag is the so-called scissors clause, which is under “Regulations” after clause 181 in the pay equity act. It basically allows the minister to exempt any class of employers from the application of any provision of this act. I would put this to you. Is it essential as well to remove that scissors clause that basically allows any government—current or future—to say pay equity doesn't apply? The whole banking industry could be exempt, for example.

My second question is to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. There have been concerns raised about the provisions that allow federal government funding to the private sector in the event of a loss, guarantees that in whole or in part allow foreign aid in a sense—development assistance—to underwrite the private sector and private sector profits. Are you concerned? I image you're addressing that a bit in your comments. Are you concerned about those particular provisions if the bill gets through without amendment?

[Annick Desjardins]

I will answer your question about the “scissors clause”. This is the first time I have ever heard that expression.

That's exactly what made chapter IX of the Quebec's pay equity legislation unconstitutional in 2004. That chapter allowed for certain employers to be exempted. Power was granted to the commission charged with pay equity cases. The commission even had to examine the criteria in place. Despite those criteria, some employers were exempted from the legislation. We challenged the constitutionality of the decisions and the chapter. The Superior Court of Quebec agreed with us, and the Government of Quebec never appealed that decision.

So it is clear that, if the minister exercises this power and the section is kept, we will challenge the constitutionality of those decisions in the courts. I believe that, if this section remains in the act, the minister will not be able to apply it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

Thank you for your question.

I would say that a blank cheque to a private sector company without insuring development and financial additionality should not and cannot be counted as official development assistance. Of course, if the government still wants to do it, that's its prerogative, but it shouldn't be counting it as ODA.

[Hassan Yussuff]

I don't want to elaborate except to say that you can't exempt employers from their human rights responsibility. It would be a fundamental breach of human rights commitments. I hope that excusing employers from applying their responsibility in a way that is equitable for the people who are affected by the decisions they make is not what is intended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you to all our witnesses for your presentations. I do know it was on fairly short notice, but I think everyone's presentations were very thorough. On behalf of the committee, we thank you for that.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes and ask the second panel to join us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll reconvene for panel two, looking at Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.

Thank you all for coming on short notice, and for a big bill.

We do have votes tonight. I'm told bells are at 6:15, so we should be able to go to 6:30. I think it's a 30-minute bell.

We'll start Mr. O'Hara, president and CEO of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana.

[James O'Hara, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana]

Thank you, Chair and the standing committee, for the invitation to appear today. My name is James O'Hara, and I'm the president and CEO of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, commonly known as CFAMM. I'm a medical cannabis patient myself.

CFAMM is a national non-profit organization that has successfully represented medical cannabis patients since 2014. We speak on behalf of the approximately 350,000 medical cannabis patients in Canada today. Our organization has emerged as the thoughtful, legitimate grassroots voice for medical cannabis in the non-profit advocacy space today.

Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying “25%”. That's the average amount of tax that has been applied on medical cannabis: 25%. In many cases, that's low. Fully a quarter of the cost of a patient's medicine is consumed by tax today.

It's essential to understand that affordable and reasonable access to medical cannabis is absolutely critical to a patient's health and well-being, and ultimately their lives, but that's not what we have today. In fact, we have the complete opposite, in the form of a significantly tax-burdened medicine.

Let me take some time to recap some of this government's rationale for taxing cannabis. The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau has stated many times that non-medical users will flock to the medical system and abuse it. Given that cannabis legalization was implemented last month, this is no longer a valid reason.

He has also stated many times that legalization has been put in place in order to defeat the black market. This is also no longer a valid reason. This is because these burdensome taxes now do the complete opposite, and that is to encourage a black market, not defeat it. In fact, there's more reason than ever before for a black market to exist.

Let me give you a measure of that. I can honestly sit here today and tell you categorically that I've never, ever, in my life, heard so many patients tell me they will no longer support the industry but instead will go to the black market—the very black market that Mr. Trudeau is trying to eliminate. It has also been stated by many sitting members of this government in written form to their patient constituents that medical cannabis patients need to pay the costs for legalization and enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that we've already paid. We've been paying for almost 20 years. We've paid that bill and then some. This was before legalization even existed, so it was a very long time ago.

Let me add a lesser-known fact here: Medical cannabis patients do more than pay. They save costs for this country and companies through less medication, fewer doctor and hospital visits, and fewer sick days.

Members of this government have also stated that there's an excise tax exemption for medical cannabis patients. The bar for this so-called exemption is anything less than or equal to 0.3% THC. That is not medical cannabis; that's the THC level of hemp. In the end, this is a political defensive measure simply put in place to confuse people, and is effectively no exemption for patients at all.

The latest version of the medical tax justification appears to be the DIN argument. There already are tax-exempt products today that have no DIN. The reality is that this is just another stall tactic on the part of this government in order to continue to collect taxes from health-challenged and economically challenged Canadians as long as possible.

Whether it's the story of non-medical users cheating the system, black market elimination, medical users having to pay a bill, false exemptions, or DINs, these all lead to a single obvious truth: This government desires the tax revenue at any cost. Let me tell you something about that cost. These taxes come at a far greater cost than any one of us, including me, is capable of ever imagining. For literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians each and every day, it's paid for in pain, suffering and death.

I'd like to say to the members of this committee and to the MPs who have supported these taxes that each and every time you state another reason as to why taxes on medical cannabis should exist, please remember who you're saying this to. You're saying this to your ill mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, brother, sister, whomever, and your constituents. Medical cannabis patients are all around you. They are among us. Realize that you can justify this practice only if you either are seriously misinformed or have no compassion whatsoever for the daily struggles of health-challenged and economically challenged Canadians.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, it's on these very compassionate grounds that I call on this government to end all taxes on medical cannabis immediately.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, for your time. I'll be happy to answer questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn to the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, with Mr. Louie, chair of the advisory board, and Mr. Bear, chair.

Mr. Louie, go ahead.

[Chief Robert Louie, Chair of Advisory Board, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, honourable members of this committee. My name is Robert Louie, and I am chairman of the lands advisory board. My Okanagan Syilx name is Seemoo. Seemoo is our ancestral name, which means connected to the land.

I am here with colleagues to speak to this committee in support of the amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, which I will refer to as FNLMA, in Bill C-86. We hope that all members of this committee will support these amendments as set out in division 11 of the bill, and that the legislation will be passed as soon as possible by Parliament.

This is the legislative step Canada takes to make the act conform to the most recent improvements of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, originally proposed to Canada in 1994 and signed in 1996.

Though we support the amendments to the FNLMA in Bill C-86, we wish to raise with committee members the need for future reforms to replace the FNLMA with a more appropriate and efficient approach, one that better respects our government-to-government agreement.

I will begin with some background on this most important and historic accord, the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

I am a former chief of the Westbank First Nation, a self-governing community, and have worked for many years now to advance self-government over our lands. I have chaired the lands advisory board for close to 30 years, since its inception.

With me tonight is my colleague Chief Austin Bear, of the Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan, who is chair of the first nations land management resource centre. This is the technical and finance arm of our organization.

Both of us worked together as part of a group of 14 first nations in the 1980s and early 1990s seeking a way to escape the draconian laws and policies of the Indian Act. We were driven by a desire to obtain recognition for our inherent right to self-government of our reserve lands and resources.

After many years of negotiations, research, consultation and extensive discussion, we signed the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management with Canada in 1996. This framework agreement was ratified by Canada when the FNLMA was enacted in 1999. The old and grossly outdated Indian Act land system held our communities back and did not respect our decision-making and our traditions. The old system did not meet the needs of community members and harmed our ability to participate in the mainstream economy at the speed of business.

In accordance with the framework agreement, individual first nations have the recognized authority to make decisions regarding their own lands and can promote healthier and more vibrant communities with direct economic benefits for our first nations, and indeed for all Canadians.

Through the framework agreement, we are awakening and improving areas of the Canadian economy that were depressed by the outdated Indian Act. This is a win-win solution. Let me re-emphasize—a win-win solution.

Self-government over lands is not only practical and effective, but is also a step towards meeting Canada's commitments to self-government under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which I will refer to as UNDRIP.

I begin with this focus on the critically important issue of self-government over lands because it is vital for committee members to understand that the framework agreement is at the heart of the matter. The legislation to amend the FNLMA in Bill C-86, and indeed the entire FNLMA, exists only because of the framework agreement.

Canada chose to ratify the framework agreement in Parliament through the FNLMA, but all the details of the agreement on self-government are found in the framework agreement. The purpose of the most recent FNLMA amendments is to reflect the amendments to the framework agreement that we developed in full partnership with Canada.

We are not FNLMA first nations exercising self-government under terms imposed or delegated by federal law; we are framework agreement first nations. The framework agreement is first nation-led, and it drives the FNLMA, not the other way around.

Under the framework agreement, first nations resume the independent exercise of self-government over their lands. First nations do not need any agreements with Canada or any federal legislation in order to exercise the inherent right to self-government.

However, part of the value of signing the framework agreement with Canada is the national recognition of this exercise of self-government combined with Canada's recognition of the need to dismantle the failed Indian Act in a measured and careful manner.

We see the framework agreement as a centrally important document in a new relationship with Canada and all Canadians regarding reserve land governance.

First nations sign a framework agreement to enter the process and first nations ratify the framework agreement to exercise self-government pursuant to their own laws. The framework agreement is not imposed on all first nations by Canada. Participation in the framework agreement is entirely voluntary. The framework agreement only applies to those first nations that choose to ratify the agreement.

The framework agreement is flexible to respect the particular conditions and priorities of individual first nations. In every case, it is up to the members of individual first nations to decide whether or not to leave the Indian Act land provisions and exercise their own self-government over lands.

Each first nation decides whether to ratify the framework agreement approach through their own land code. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, no single land code or set of laws imposed by Canada or by the framework agreement. This is good, and it's what first nations want.

We believe this to be one of the hallmarks of its success. The framework agreement is remarkably progressive and thriving. Now over 200 first nations have either ratified a land code or are in a process of developing a land code or have submitted official notice of their intent to participate. This means that approximately 30% of all first nations communities in Canada are involved today in this very important framework agreement and what we're doing in land management.

The framework agreement was developed by just 14 first nations but now, 22 years later, 81 first nations have resumed their land governance authority and 57 more first nations are actively considering this option right now. Budget 2018 envisions additional first nations over the next five years. We of course would like to see this number increased.

Although the framework agreement has been successful from the outset, we have also successfully worked with Canada on a number of improvements over the years. I think it would be beneficial to highlight these most recent amendments for committee members.

First, the framework agreement was developed before UNDRIP. Many first nations operating under the authority of the framework agreement see Canada's recognition of UNDRIP as an important step toward reconciliation respect for self-government and should be reflected in the framework agreement and in federal legislation.

First nations voters called upon to consider land codes want clarity. The new UNDRIP clause in the framework agreement will be important to voters considering whether to opt out of the Indian Act land system, because it signals Canada's commitment to an approach consistent with UNDRIP. With respect, I think the UNDRIP language in Bill C-86 could be improved. Right now, it says that Canada is committed to implementing UNDRIP; that is fine, but more explicit language might include words to the effect that the interpretation of the framework agreement and this act should be guided by the principles established in UNDRIP.

Second, we wish to emphasize to this committee the amendment to the voting process for land codes. In almost all the votes we have seen across the country, there has been overwhelming support for land codes. In two first nations communities votes, there was unanimous support among voters. On average, land codes are supported by 84% of voters.

However, in some cases when there has been an overwhelming majority vote in favour of the land code, it may be surprising to committee members that those land code votes have still failed. This is because the framework agreement does not only require a majority vote in favour but also that a minimum threshold of 25% of all eligible voters must vote in favour of the land code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Can you sum up fairly quickly? We're considerably over time. We'd like people to try to hold it to five minutes.

Go ahead.

[Chief Robert Louie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to go through this a little more quickly and paraphrase a little more.

I want to point out to this honourable committee that just this past month when Brunswick House First Nation in Ontario held a vote with 153 yes votes and only 16 no votes, the land code still failed. Only nine more votes were needed. Bill C-86 can change that.

I can assure you that the success of the first nations with the framework agreement has been overwhelming. This is the sixth amendment to the framework agreement and....

There's so much I would like to say, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the aspects of this. I wanted to state something about the misstatement of the purpose of the framework agreement and some of the subsidiary policies and things of that nature.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Louie, all members have a copy of the submissions, so they will have what you sent us in writing.

We're doubly over our time. Maybe you could further that information in answers to a question. I'm just starting to worry a little about time.

[Chief Robert Louie]

You bet.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

When you use the word “frame”—just so the members are clear—you really mean the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management?