Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: law-making

  • First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019 -(see link below)

    Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election platform promise to immediately legalize marijuana if elected spurred a frenzy of activity behind the scenes. There were police officers, politicians and other former leaders, previously against the sale of the drug, making plans for their own cannabis boutiques. The very same people that had previously outlawed, arrested and jailed people for growing, possessing and/or selling cannabis would now have the unfair insider advantage about where to sell and to whom.

    In the chaotic positioning that played out behind the scenes by those “in the know,” very little attention was given to the full legal implications of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act.

    The failure to properly engage First Nations about the legalization of cannabis was not only irresponsible policy making but was also a lost political opportunity to work on a nation to nation basis with First Nations — one of Trudeau’s other campaign promises. Trudeau, who had also pledged to respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), failed to sit down with First Nations and come up with a comprehensive cannabis legalization plan that would not only address legalization (manufacture and sale), but also the thousands of Indigenous peoples in jail or with criminal records for cannabis offences.

    Further, in neglecting Canada’s legal obligation to enact laws which are consistent with the Aboriginal rights contained in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it missed the chance to harmonize federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions and laws in relation to cannabis. This void has created the potential for not only legal conflict, but for political and social tensions at the local level.

    Take for example, the situation in Ontario. Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government has decided to proceed to license cannabis sales by way of a lottery. Only a small number of licences are targeted for First Nations distributors on reserve and none for First Nations peoples and businesses located off reserve. In every way, Ontario’s cannabis lottery scheme offends Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as First Nations’ inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own lands, peoples and businesses.

    Ontario’s plan presumes that provincial jurisdiction trumps First Nation jurisdiction — which is not the case. Both the 1997 Inherent Right Policy which confirmed that s. 35 includes and protects the right of First Nations to be self-determining, and Trudeau’s commitment to respect First Nation governance rights should have resulted in much more comprehensive legislation. UNDRIP, which is the standard by which United Nations treaty bodies will hold Canada to account, protects the Indigenous right of self-determination which includes governance, lawmaking and enforcement, as well as the management of Indigenous economies within their traditional territories (i.e. not limited to the reserves).

    These unresolved spheres of jurisdiction between First Nations and the provinces have already created confusion on the ground with some First Nations enacting their own laws, some ignoring provincial laws and others choosing to allow or ban cannabis on reserve as a governance decision.

    In still other First Nations, without any First Nation law in place, and according to the long-held legal and political position that provincial laws should not apply on reserve, many individuals have started their own cannabis businesses. This is putting a strain on some First Nations who felt not only excluded from cannabis policy development, but were not resourced to develop laws, policies and enforcement frameworks about First Nation-owned businesses versus individual businesses.

    Much of the First Nation critique also included concerns about the lack of time and resources to develop health and safety plans for each First Nation. While there are some exceptions, in general, much of this legal, economic and social co-ordination remains outstanding.

    What is worse is that Trudeau’s failure to work collaboratively with federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions created a political gap in which non-government entities, like the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), could step in and start stirring the pot.

    More than a year after the passing of the Cannabis Act, the AFN held a Cannabis Summit to talk about the implications of cannabis legalization. Their summit targeted federal and provincial government representatives and agencies, as well as First Nations. It was no surprise then that Day One of the summit saw the chief commissioner of the so-called First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) on the agenda trying to persuade First Nations to submit to federal tax regimes for cannabis.

    The FNTC is a Crown agency, fully governed and staffed under federal laws and regulations. The inclusion of the word “First Nation” in the title is really misleading. The goal of the federal government, through the FNTC, has always been to get First Nations to tax themselves and give up their reserve lands and turn the lands into individual fee simple parcels (i.e. provincial jurisdiction).

    This brings us full circle back to the legal and political confusion at the local level which, on the one hand, is clearly the result of Trudeau’s failure to harmonize all legal systems and jurisdictions in Canada, but also the fault of the AFN.

    The AFN waited nearly four years to have this summit — which appears conveniently timed so as not to make any waves for the Trudeau government before the legislation was passed. We saw very little public advocacy for First Nation governments to be part of the policy development around legalization and thus, in the eyes of many, the AFN failed its job as an advocacy organization. The result? The AFN shares responsibility for this legal void as well as the thousands of First Nations peoples who are languishing in jail, on parole and subject to conditions and/or unemployable due to past cannabis offences which have not been pardoned or fully expunged from their records.

    Once again, First Nations peoples at the local level pay the price and receive few of the benefits. Far from delivering on his promise to fully legalize cannabis, Trudeau controlled and commodified the cannabis trade which seemed to benefit insider entrepreneurs and left the full decriminalization of cannabis for another day. In the end, there were no political waves from the AFN with regards to federal legalization.

    On the positive side, more and more First Nations leaders have engaged with their citizens and are in the process of enacting or have already enacted their own rules and regulations related to cannabis. Many have realized that they are on their own in terms of defending their jurisdiction to govern their own economies. They are in fact the rights holders and waiting around for the AFN to encourage Trudeau to harmonize laws is clearly not on the agenda. As with every other right ever proven by First Nations and reaffirmed in court decisions, the right to govern the cannabis business will have to be lived, asserted and defended by First Nations on the ground.

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/15506/first-nations-and-the-business-of-cannabis-pamela-palmater?spotlight

  • Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights or Interests Act

    Harper’s Conservatives have given the signal that they may, once again, refocus their legislative eye on Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise known as the MRP bill). To this end, the parties have been preparing to study the bill and hear from witnesses on possible amendments.

     Most of Canada’s legislative initiatives go largely unexplained to grassroots Indigenous peoples – community members and leaders alike. This Harper government, in particular, has done everything it can to mislead, misinform, distract, confuse and outright lie to First Nations about its intentions with regards to the Indian Act. More so, they have done very little to explain the implications of bills to those who will be impacted – First Nations community members.

     Most will recall Prime Minister Harper’s infamous words at the so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering this past January: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to unilaterally repeal or to unilaterally amend the Indian Act.”

     Yet, here is the extensive list of government bills currently before Parliament which will unilaterally repeal or fundamentally alter the Indian Act in significant ways:

              Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

              Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act

              Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

              Bill S-6  First Nations Elections Act

              Bill S-8  Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act             Bill S-207  An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act  

    This does not include any of the omnibus or other bills which impact First Nations. There are two others bills expected to be introduced in the New Year as well:

               First Nation Property Ownership Act

              First Nation Education Act

    It would be almost impossible for First Nation community members to know what these bills are really about simply by reading the titles of the bills. The Conservative Party is very good at using titles for their bills which betray what the bill actually does. Bill S-2 is a prime example of a bill that is being promoted as one which will protect Indigenous women from domestic violence and “give” them equal rights upon marriage or relationship breakdown. This bill does neither of those things.

      It would make this blog far too long to review all of the sections, but communities should be aware of several problematic areas. The Preamble (which is just an introduction and does not contain any law) does give an important indication of the two theoretical underpinnings of the bill:   (1)   The bill has an individual-rights/interest focus versus an Indigenous communal, holistic approach; The bill focuses on the best interests of the individual child as opposed to the collective, inter-connected interests of the entire family (including the child), extended family, community and Nation. It is this very approach that led to residential schools, 60’s scoop and the current over-representation of our Indigenous children in the care of child welfare.

    (2)   The bill views First Nations peoples as “cultures” versus to governments with their own jurisdictions or Nations with their own sovereignty.

     The bill focuses everyone’s attention on the particular culture of the First Nation – which is to be “considered” by a judge in a marital dispute over property. However, there is no deference for First Nation legal or governance jurisdiction over property disputes over their own territories. This is very similar language to Supreme Court of Canada cases which have essentially frozen Aboriginal rights in “pre-contact” times and only protect those rights which the court considers “integral” enough. In this case, non-Indigenous people will be judge and jury over what our culture is, which parts of it are important, and whether it is relevant to property issues on reserve.

     The general focus of the bill is to enact provincial-like rules with regard to the divison of marital property on reserve after the break-up of a marriage or common-law relationship. This essentially means that each spouse is entitled to half – the house, land, etc. However, these provincial-like rules are not optional – they are mandatory. While the act considers them to be interim rules, the fact is no funds have been allotted for governance, law-making or enforcement and thus for many First Nations, they will remain permament. The bill also contains the following provisions:

     

    –          They apply to all First Nations until they enact laws pursuant to the bill;

    –          Non-Indians will be able to gain rights (exclusive occupation, life interest, etc) to the home and contiguous land on reserve;

    –          A judge can make a ruling that violence has occurred and bar that person from the house, without the alleged offender being charged or convicted;

    –          First Nations are not entitled to notice for emergency protection orders which give possession to a house and land to non-Indians;

    –          Certificates of Possession can be forcibly transferred from one First Nation spouse to another; and

    –          A person who is not member/Indian, can apply to have order enforced as though he/she was member/Indian.

    Without getting into too much technicality, this bill either conflicts with or violates various Canadian laws:

     

    (1)   Bill S-2 conflicts with the Indian Act – The Indian Act reserves land for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians and make it an offense for non-Indians to trespass on reserve, yet Bill S-2 creates new rights for non-Indians on reserve;

    (2)   Bill S-2 is outside is outside Canada’s legislative authority in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 – This is because Canada is purporting to legislate with regard to the property and civil rights non-Indians which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, provincial legislation will also be required to make the bill effective.

    (3)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because many reserves were set up via treaties, which are now protected in section 35. These treaties are for the benefit of Indians – not non-Indians.

    (4)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because the inherent right of First Nations to be self-governing over their own peoples and lands is recognized by Canada as protected in section 35. Yet with this bill, Canada purports to control internal matters even more than they do now.

     

    (5)   Bill S-2 represents a breach of Canada’s honour, its fiduciary obligations and its legal duty to consult and accommodate. Bill S-2 was drafted without First Nation input, there were no legal consultations, and the bill will result in more federal control, not less.

    (6)   Bill S-2 violates many articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – including:

     

    Art.3 – the right to be self-determining;

    Art. 4 – the right to be self-governing over our own internal affairs;

    Art. 19 – the right of free, informed and prior consent before ANY legislative measures that affects us; and

    Art. 37 – the right to recognition and enforcement of our treaties.

    Some of the other key concerns that have been raised by witnesses who have testified previously include the lack of access to justice as all remedies must be access through courts, no funding is provided for accessing legal services, and many communities don’t have local access to courts. The issue of housing on marital breakdown is further complicated by Canada’s refusal to address the housing crisis or provide adequate funding for shelters.

     

    There are many other issues not outlined here in order to keep this blog simple. However, I will be publishing a more detailed analysis of both direct and indirect impacts of this bill.

     My recommendations (in part):

     (1) The Status of Women committee who will be studying the bill should reject the bill in its entirety. The entire bill conflicts with both Indigenous laws and Canadian law and cannot be saved.

     (2) Canada should respect its own policy position that First Nations have a right to be self-governing which is constitutionally protected within section 35. This would correspond with the right to be self-determining as per Article 3 of UNDRIP.