By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, December 11, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—As the date for legal pot nears, the Assembly of First Nations has thrown a new wrinkle into the rollout.

Last week, the AFN announced the formation of a committee to study how aboriginal territories will implement their own regulations. Regional chiefs from Quebec and Ontario share committee duties, and are expected to report on all aspects of their own proposals for legalization of cannabis.

Ontario chief Isadore Day suggested the committee may want to raise the age for legal consumption on their own territories, based on studies that show young brains are still being formed into the early twenties.

As with the provinces, there is no unanimity on how the new laws will apply. But there is unanimity on one issue, First Nations say that they will determine the rules around the use and sale of marijuana on reserves and will not be governed by any federal or provincial laws.

Many of the points raised at the AFN annual meeting last week are certainly worthy of consideration.

If the Government of Canada is committed to a nation-to-nation approach, then any move which has a direct impact on Indigenous communities needs to be based on some form of agreement.

But when push comes to shove, just which government will take precedence?

Another sticking point, which has also been the main bone of contention with the provinces, is around revenue sharing.

Currently, cigarettes manufactured and sold on multiple reserves across Canada are free of tax, ostensibly to be available to those on the territory who enjoy tax-free status. In reality, many points of sale are adjacent to large urban areas, and cigarettes are also sold to those who come to the reserve to avoid the hefty “sin” taxes currently levied on tobacco by all governments.

Presumably, on-reserve marijuana dispensaries would enjoy similar tax treatment, and the temptation to sell the product to neighbouring residents who do not enjoy tax-exempt status would be huge.

The current proposed patchwork of provincial regulations appears seamless in relation to the multiple regulatory changes that could be involved when laws are developed by more than 600 First Nations and 3,000 reserves across the country.

It seems unlikely that the outcome of any AFN committee findings will be implemented before the July 1 deadline set for legal pot.

But aboriginal business leaders are already moving in to take advantage of the potential pot of gold expected to materialize with legalization.

Even former AFN chief Phil Fontaine is reported to have joined the movement, by partnering with a licensed marijuana producer to create Aboriginal Roots, an on-reserve marijuana franchise grow-op initiative.

In many remote communities, the potential for economic growth is minimal so the financial lure of marijuana businesses is also attractive.

But as Day suggested, there are also potential health and social costs attached to overuse or abuse of the drug. Not surprisingly, AFN leaders across the country are not unanimous in their view of how pot legalization should be carried out.

All this is happening just six months before the implementation target date.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cannot afford to back away from his commitment to legalize marijuana on the next Canada Day.

His government is midway through its mandate, and his surprise victory was largely the result of a surge in support by pot-smoking, next-gen voters, who would not take kindly to a delay.

Given the commitment by Trudeau to reconciliation with First Nations, the prime minister has no option but to negotiate on this issue as a sign of good faith.

Both commitments may seem contradictory.

Some First Nations, like some provinces, are already calling for a delay in the implementation date.

Given the current involvement of organized crime in the illegal drug trade, law enforcement officials will, no doubt, be concerned about the potential for criminality and how that will be managed.

Many questions loom, with few answers.

At the end of the day, the financial windfall that comes with legalization will ensure that all parties come to the table.

The AFN has its work cut out for itself, with the requirement to reach consensus quickly enough to be ready for the July 1 deadline.

So does the government.

As one of the first countries in the world moving to legalize cannabis across the board, Canada is being closely watched by other jurisdictions considering a similar move.

Controversy cannot overshadow the launch of the new pot law. Trudeau and his team need a smooth rollout on legalization. Their re-election may depend on it.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, July 24, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The pot thickens.

The provincial ministers annual summer gabfest handed the prime minister a gift he could not refuse.

A political pot fight is just what Justin Trudeau needs to shore up his left flank.

Traditional New Democratic voters across the country fled their party to support the Liberals in the last election.

Some simply could not stomach the possibility of another term of Conservative government under Stephen Harper. They voted Liberal to block the Tories.

Others liked Liberal promises, including the pot legalization proposal and the claim that the current electoral system had run its course and would be replaced before the next election.

Promise No. 2 has been shelved indefinitely. When the parliamentary committee, chaired by the opposition, delivered a split decision on the matter, the governing Liberals abandoned any changes.

It was an open secret that the prime minister did not favour proportional voting, and would have preferred a change to a ranked ballot electoral change. When the committee excluded that option, the Liberals decided to make an early break from the well-publicized promise that, “We are committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post.”

The Trudeau team was banking on the fact that the electoral reform promise really only appealed to a narrow group of voters, mostly those who were already committed to their party of choice and unlikely to switch allegiance.

The pot promise, on the other hand, taps into a broad swathe of millennial voters whose recreational vice of choice is marijuana.

That younger voting cohort is spread across the country, and very motivated to punish any party that stands in the way of the legalization timetable.

It was not surprising that the proposal by the government of Manitoba to delay implementation was met with little support from most of the premiers.

The premiers’ framing of unresolved issues was also fairly revealing. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, usually the most Conservative of premiers, appeared more concerned about revenue stream details than the safety issues emphasized by his only Conservative counterpart, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister.

“Labelling, public health, who’s selling it, what’s the split, road safety—there is a great deal of issues here,” Wall said.

Despite public claims of fear for safety, the real issues seem to revolve around what jurisdictions will manage distribution and who benefits financially.

Road safety issues can be challenged because, presumably, today’s highways are already crawling with pot-smoking drivers currently securing their product illegally. There is scant evidence that legalization measures will promote a spike in the number of users or potential pothead drivers on the road.

There is evidence that the regulation and distribution decisions will be an economic boon to governments, and the provinces want to solidify their bargaining power in an effort to claim a bigger share of the literal pot.

Premier Brian Gallant of New Brunswick characterized the legalization as an “economic opportunity.”

And he is right. The biggest fight revolves around the splits, which is why some cities are already making noises that they need to be compensated directly for the costs associated with legalization.

That approach ignores any costs associated with the current system. The rational behind legalizing pot is to break the monopoly currently enjoyed by criminals, who upsell their young clients to encourage more addicts and include deadly pills in their repertoire of sales items. Legalization should save money in the long term.

The popularity of marijuana use was not lost on premiers. Manitoba stood alone in its demand for an immediate delay in the implementation timetable.

The rest kept that option open but left enough wiggle room for the federal Liberals to drive a truck through.

Trudeau will be the lead driver. He would love nothing better than a fight with any premier who attempts to delay the implementation date.

That fight would simply solidify Liberal support amongst wavering voters who are disappointed in the government’s reversal on first-past-the post changes.

It could provide a direct foil to NDP premiers in Alberta and British Columbia, who cannot afford to fight too hard against the Canada Day deadline next year.

Most Liberal premiers were guarded in their response to Premier Pallister’s proposal for delay. They were tepid in public statements but did leave the door open to potential delay, if the negotiations hit an impasse.

If money is the only sticking point, premiers cannot afford to overplay their hand for fear of a voter backlash.

The premiers delivered Trudeau a battle royal.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.