
As Indigenous communities consider banishment to address drug crime, a lawyer explains how it works
Social Sharing
As many N.W.T. communities grapple with an ongoing drug crisis, some are looking for new ways to address the issue and increase public safety.
One idea discussed last week at a public safety forum hosted by the Dene Nation in Yellowknife is for communities to banish people deemed responsible for problems.
Marc Gibson is a lawyer who practices in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Ontario with a focus on Indigenous rights and constitutional law. He spoke with CBC's Trailbreaker host Hilary Bird on Friday about how banishment works and what rights communities and individuals hold.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
We have a number of different types of Indigenous communities here in the Northwest Territories, those with settled claims, and we have reserves. Can you walk us through how banishment works in Indigenous communities?
At its core it's basically the process of removing somebody from a community or from part of a community or from a certain situation. And there's a number of different ways that it can be done depending on what the community is trying to do.
If they're trying to remove non-members from the community, it can be done fairly easily actually, through a trespass law and through trespass enforcement. And if they're trying to remove members who have a right to be in the community, then it's a much more complicated process because the person has a legal right to be there.
Indigenous people have collective rights to the lands that they have, whether they're reserve lands or settlement lands. And so if the person being removed has a right to be there, then the community needs to go through due process in order to remove that person and make sure that they've had a chance to tell their side of the story and that they're making a reasoned decision.
So if it's a non-member, it's much easier to do. How do you go about doing that?
It's an authority that most First Nations have, regardless of whether they're an Indian Act First Nation or an Indigenous group that has a settlement agreement or a treaty with the government.
They usually have some kind of authority that allows them to control residency on reserve and issues relating to public safety and public health. And those are all powers that can be used to create banishment laws.
But they need the law itself, they need some kind of bylaw or law that allows them to exercise their authority to banish people. So it starts with passing a law that allows them to use the power they have in a specific way that's endorsed by their community members.
And then once that's set, how would they go about enforcing it?
It depends on the community, but usually it's through the police. It's important that if an Indigenous community is thinking of enacting a banishment law or removing people from the community in some way that they have thought about enforcement or else you're just going to end up with a law that people aren't going to respect and that's not going to help the situation.
If you're going to have the police enforce the law, it's important to work with the police as you're crafting the law, as you're drafting it, as you're developing it with your community members. And talk to them about how that should work, whether they have any concerns, and make sure that those are addressed in advance.
If you're going to use some other kind of enforcement mechanism, like a First Nation enforcement body, a bylaw enforcement body or something else, work that out ahead of time because you don't want to have a law that you don't have an enforcement mechanism in place for.
Sahtu Grand Chief Wilbert Kochon at the meeting this week told delegates that he believes that charter rights could be preventing communities from standing up to drug dealers. Are there limits to a community's power?
Yes, and certainly the Charter is an important limit.
I mentioned that there are collective rights to be on community lands, but there are also Charter rights. Individuals in Canada, including Indigenous people, all have Charter rights and that includes the right to security as a person, rights relating to equality. There's lots of rights that could be engaged, particularly under Section 7 of the Charter when you're starting to remove somebody from a place that they have a deep connection to, that they have a home, where they have their community.
And so absolutely, Charter rights are engaged and need to be considered. And that doesn't mean that the fact that an individual has Charter rights prevents them from being banished, but it means that the community has to consider that, has to balance those rights against the rights of the community, and has to provide procedural fairness that allows them to make a decision that the courts can uphold and that'll be seen as fair by their own community members.
What if someone owns property in a community? Can they be banished?
Certainly they could still be removed from the community, but the power to banish a person or to remove them isn't necessarily the same power that you would need to appropriate their property or to take their goods or to actually take the land if they own the land in some form. So that would need to be a separate mechanism and that's not a mechanism that I would say Indigenous communities have access to as easily.
Seizing someone's property is a much different game than removing them from the community under the powers that they have through either their treaties or the Indian Act.
I know it's an ancient practice, but we've been hearing about banishment with, particularly, Indigenous communities over the last little while. I'm thinking of what's happening in Haida Gwaii for instance. How common has banishment become these days?
It's certainly a tool that Indigenous communities are becoming aware of. And like you say, it's an ancient practice. I think a lot of Indigenous communities have practiced banishment going back millennia. And historically it was often the most serious form of punishment. It could be a death sentence. If you're in a remote location and you are cut off from the rest of your community members, you might not be able to survive. And so the roots of banishment go back a long way.
But I think as communities are entering modern treaties and are, sort of, coming to terms with a lot of the powers and authorities that they have, and are reconnecting with their traditional authority, communities are looking at the tools that they have available to them. And banishment is a tool that I think a lot of communities are realizing can help with solving certain kinds of problems in certain situations.
And it's not a one-size-fits-all solution for all kinds of problems, but it's a tool that can help if you're trying to solve a certain kind of problem involving individuals in the community. Or in a certain location that the community would be safer or healthier if those people were removed.
Yeah, let's dive into that a little bit more. What are some of the other options Indigenous communities might have when dealing with this drug crisis and drug dealers in their community?
Removing the drug dealers themselves are sort of the low-hanging fruit. It can be effective to just remove the people who are causing the problems, especially if it's a remote community and access can be sort of easily controlled.
But often it's not that simple. And often there could be a non-Indigenous community right next door, and so it could be difficult to remove the person from the area entirely unless you're cooperating with your neighbours.
And even if you can remove the drug dealers or the wrongdoers or whoever it is that's causing the problem in the community, more people could pop up, and you're still not dealing with the entire problem, like a drug crisis, for example.
It's a very complex problem. It has lots of different causes. It has lots of different effects. And so things like social services, like child welfare, a lot of Indigenous communities control housing, and so they can achieve a lot of the beneficial effects of banishment just by removing people from housing or controlling their housing regulations.
You really need to look at it holistically. I know a lot of First Nations that are considering banishment, at the same time they're considering, how do we provide social supports to our citizens? How do we support children? How do we support the neighbours? And these are all important considerations because just removing the people who are there right now causing the problems doesn't necessarily remove, you know, the root cause of the problem, or any of its effects.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
16 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Canada plans to hit NATO spending target early and reduce US defense reliance, Carney says
TORONTO (AP) — Canada will meet NATO's military spending guideline by early next year and diversify defense spending away from the United States, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Monday. Carney said Canada will achieve NATO's spending target of 2% of gross domestic product five years earlier than it had previously planned. 'Our military infrastructure and equipment have aged, hindering our military preparedness," Carney said. "Only one of our four submarines is seaworthy. Less than half of our maritime fleet and land vehicles are operational. More broadly we are too reliant on the United States." According to NATO figures, Canada was estimated to be spending 1.33% of GDP on its military budget in 2023, below the 2% target that NATO countries have set for themselves. Canada previously said it was on track to meet NATO's spending target by the end of the decade. 'Our goal is to protect Canadians, not to satisfy NATO accountants,' Carney said. The announcement of increased spending came as Canada is about to host a summit of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations in Alberta on June 15-17, and before the NATO summit in Europe. It also comes as NATO allies are poised to increase the commitment well beyond the 2% target. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said last week that most U.S. allies at NATO endorse U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that they invest 5% of gross domestic product on their defense needs and are ready to ramp up security spending even more. Carney has said that he intends to diversify Canada's procurement and enhance the country's relationship with the EU. 'We should no longer send three quarters of our defense capital spending to America,' Carney said in a speech at the University of Toronto. 'We will invest in new submarines, aircraft, ships, armed vehicles and artillery, as well as new radar, drones and sensors to monitor the seafloor and the Arctic.' Canada has been in discussions with the European Union to join an EU drive to break its security dependency on the United States, with a focus on buying more defense equipment, including fighter jets, in Europe. Carney's government is reviewing the purchase of U.S. F-35 fighter jets to see if there are other options. Carney said that the U.S. 'is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its (relative) contributions to our collective security.' 'Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu," Carney said. Trump's calls to make Canada the 51st U.S. state have infuriated Canadians, and Carney won the job of prime minister after promising to confront the increased aggression shown by Trump. Carney said that the long-held view that Canada's geographic location will protect Canadians is becoming increasingly archaic. European allies and Canada have already been investing heavily in their armed forces, as well as on weapons and ammunition, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.


CTV News
21 minutes ago
- CTV News
Defence lawyers begin final submissions in hockey players' sex assault trial
A composite image of five photographs show former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont., Wednesday, April 30, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nicole Osborne Defence lawyers representing five former members of Canada's world junior hockey team have begun their final submissions to the judge overseeing the players' sexual assault trial. Prosecutors will follow later this week with their submissions to Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will then set a date to deliver her ruling. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Callan Foote have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. Court has heard the complainant, who was 20 at the time, met some of the players at a downtown bar in June 2018 and went with McLeod to his hotel room to have sex. That encounter is not part of the trial, which instead focuses on what happened after several other players came into the room. The trial began in late April and has heard from nine witnesses, including the complainant and one of the accused. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2025.


CBC
28 minutes ago
- CBC
Lack of consultation means Ontario's Bill 5 oversteps treaty obligations, Oneida chief says
Social Sharing Oneida Nation of the Thames Chief Todd Cornelius had hoped that the days of Canadian governments passing laws that affect Indigenous communities without consulting them were in the past. Then Ontario's Bill 5 happened. Cornelius said the sweeping bill — which became law Thursday — violates signed treaty provisions that requires consultations with Indigenous groups, he wrote in a statement released Wednesday. "This is not only a political failure, it is a betrayal of the relationship between the Crown and our Nation," said Cornelius. Passing the bill without sufficient consultation amounts to the Ontario government breaking the series of agreements the Haudenosaunee (also known as the Six Nations and Iroquois League) signed with the Crown prior to Confederation, known as the Silver Covenant Chain, he said. "At this moment, the chain has been deeply tarnished," he said. Bill 5, also known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, includes major changes to the province's endangered species and environmental protection laws. The bill creates "special economic zones" which override provincial and municipal laws for certain projects. Premier Doug Ford has said the Ring of Fire mineral deposit in northern Ontario and his proposed tunnel under Highway 401 would be given that special status under the proposed law. Cornelius, however, said he's concerned that in an attempt to clear the way for economic development, Bill 5 negates environmental protections that are important to people in Oneida. "Oneida will not participate in a processes that diminish its sovereignty," he said. "Oneida is a nation, not a municipality or a stakeholder under Ontario law." Cornelius said he's ready to meet with representatives of the Crown — in this case the Governor General. CBC News contacted the office of Governor General Mary Simon for comment Friday, but did not receive a response. Oneida is not the first Indigenous community in Ontario to speak out against Bill 5. Among the outcry were protests at Queen's Park over the past week. Facing pressure, the government did add "duty to consult" provisions to the bill. At Queen's Park Wednesday, Indigenous Affairs Minister Greg Rickford said the duty to consult provision is being put forward to provide "greater certainty" despite it referring to existing Constitution rights for First Nations. Rosalind Antone, a member of Oneida's elected council, was one of more than 30 members from Oneida who travelled to Queen's Park this week to protest the bill. About 20 of those who came were youth members.