REFORMING SECTION 89 OF THE INDIAN ACT: TINKER, WAIVER, SOLDIER (ON), SIGH?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most circumstances, Section 89 of the Indian Act prevents the attachment of a security interest to real or personal property that is “situated on a reserve” and similarly prohibits such property from being seized or executed upon. The provision’s negative impacts on access to credit have attracted consistent criticism and calls for the provision’s reform or abolition. This article examines three possible approaches: abolishing section 89, amending section 89 to rely on a residence-based test, and codifying the ability to waive section 89. I argue that, among these three options at least, codifying the ability to waive section 89 is preferable for several reasons. Moreover, through codification, Parliament can head off any uncertainty about the validity of waiving section 89 (as the Supreme Court of Canada has not addressed the issue) and enact policy choices desired by Indian bands that Section 89 jurisprudence alone cannot generate. I conclude with critical reflections about relying on codifying the ability to waive section 89 as a solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".