Premier Houston’s denial of Mi’kmaq Treaty rights to cannabis trade obscures colonial land theft and Indigenous economic sovereignty

The Mi’kmaq’s inherent right to trade cannabis is rooted in their pre-colonial trade networks and Treaty 61 (1725), which recognized their sovereignty over lands and resources. Indigenous legal orders, such as the Mi’kmaq’s *Netukulimk*—a principle of sustainable use and sharing—explicitly include the right to trade goods, including medicinal plants like cannabis. The Premier’s denial reflects a refusal to acknowledge Indigenous legal pluralism and the continuity of these rights despite colonial disruption.

Treaty 61 (1725) and the 1760-61 treaties between the Mi’kmaq and the British Crown explicitly recognized Mi’kmaq rights to trade, hunt, and fish in their territories. These treaties were not land surrenders but diplomatic agreements affirming Mi’kmaq sovereignty. The current dispute echoes historical patterns where colonial governments selectively enforced treaties to justify resource extraction while ignoring Indigenous economic rights, as seen in the 19th-century suppression of Indigenous trade in furs and timber.

Many Indigenous cultures, including the Mi’kmaq, view trade as a relational act tied to kinship and reciprocity, rather than a purely transactional exchange. The Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace, for example, embeds trade within a framework of mutual obligation and environmental stewardship. The Premier’s framing of cannabis sales as a provincial jurisdiction issue ignores these cross-cultural legal principles, instead imposing a Western market logic that prioritizes state control over collective well-being.

Legal scholarship on Indigenous treaty rights, such as the work of John Borrows and Pamela Palmater, demonstrates that treaties are living agreements that must be interpreted in their historical and cultural context. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that Indigenous rights are not frozen in time but evolve with societal changes, including the legalization of cannabis. The Premier’s statement contradicts both legal precedent and empirical evidence on the continuity of Indigenous trade rights.

For the Mi’kmaq, cannabis holds spiritual significance as a plant of healing and connection to the land, as do many other sacred plants in Indigenous traditions. Artistic expressions, such as Mi’kmaq basketry and beadwork, often depict trade as a sacred exchange, reflecting a worldview where commerce is intertwined with ceremony. The Premier’s framing reduces this rich cultural context to a bureaucratic dispute, erasing the spiritual and artistic dimensions of Indigenous trade.

If the Mi’kmaq’s Treaty right to trade cannabis is denied, it sets a precedent for the erosion of Indigenous economic sovereignty in other sectors, from timber to renewable energy. Future legal battles may hinge on whether courts recognize Indigenous legal orders as equal to colonial law, which could reshape resource governance across Canada. A systemic solution would require co-developed frameworks that align Indigenous trade rights with provincial regulations, ensuring both economic justice and environmental sustainability.

The voices of Mi’kmaq women, who have historically been leaders in trade and healing practices, are particularly marginalized in this debate. Indigenous entrepreneurs, many of whom are women and youth, face systemic barriers to accessing licenses and capital, further entrenching colonial economic exclusion. The Premier’s statement ignores these lived experiences, instead centering the priorities of settler-colonial governance structures.