Evaluation of Banishment as a Strategy for Substance Control in Nunavik
Introduction
Leadership within Nunavik is currently assessing the feasibility of implementing banishment to mitigate the importation of illicit drugs and alcohol into their communities.
Main Body
The proposal, advocated by Pita Aatami, president of Makivvik, primarily targets non-residents who introduce contraband into the region. To facilitate this, officials are considering the modification of employment contracts for southern workers—whose housing is typically contingent upon their professional agreements—or utilizing landholding corporations that oversee Inuit-owned territories. This initiative is framed as a restoration of historical Inuit practices intended to prioritize community safety over the rights of external distributors. This approach aligns with broader trends among Indigenous communities seeking to exercise governance and sovereignty. Chief Brent Niganobe of the Mississauga First Nation cited the inadequacy of the Canadian legal system, noting that federal laws often fail to prevent convicted drug traffickers from returning to communities. He referenced a 2020 instance where the Mississauga First Nation successfully banished an alleged drug dealer, a move later upheld by the courts. While the Indian Act and the First Nations Land Management Act provide some legislative basis for such actions, Niganobe contends that the judicial system frequently overlooks these rights, necessitating unconventional administrative measures. From a legal perspective, constitutional lawyer Marc Gibson suggests that the removal of non-community members is less likely to conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights, provided the process remains equitable. However, the legal threshold for fairness increases significantly when the subject is a community member, as such actions may infringe upon rights regarding residence, employment, and familial connections. Furthermore, Gibson posits that while banishment addresses the source of supply, it does not resolve the systemic issues of existing substance presence or the needs of affected individuals, suggesting that health campaigns and educational initiatives are necessary complements to such policies. Regarding the specific legal framework of Nunavik, the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement does not explicitly address banishment. Consequently, Makivvik is currently conducting a legal analysis to determine how such a policy would integrate with the Canadian Charter of Rights and other existing statutory obligations.
Conclusion
Nunavik leaders are weighing the legal and social implications of reviving banishment to curb drug trafficking, balancing historical governance practices against contemporary constitutional requirements.