Roseburg in Cannabis debate: Will locals truly have a place, or just a role?

GREAT BAY--MP Sjamira Roseburg didn't hold back during Thursday’s reconvened meeting of Parliament’s Permanent Committee of Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry, CAFAH, as she questioned Native Nations Cannabis SXM for direct answers on whether the proposed cannabis framework would truly create meaningful opportunities for local growers or merely place them in limited roles within a system controlled by others.

Roseburg’s questioning centered on one of the most sensitive questions in the cannabis debate: how much real access, independence and economic control local people would have if the proposed model moves forward. While Native Nations repeatedly described the framework as one that would benefit locals and create opportunities for farmers, Roseburg sought to move beyond the broad assurances and pin down exactly what those opportunities would look like in practice.

Her concern became especially clear during the discussion on indoor and outdoor cultivation. Based on earlier presentations, Roseburg indicated that the proposal appeared to create an impression that local farmers would largely be placed in the outdoor cultivation segment, while Native Nations would retain control over the indoor side of the industry. When Native Nations later clarified that some local growers could also participate in indoor cultivation, Roseburg pressed for a direct explanation of what that meant.

Rather than accepting long and technical answers, she asked plainly whether local growers would be able to cultivate commercially indoors on their own, outside of Native Nations’ direct facilities or structures. For her it was not only about where cannabis would be grown, but about who would control the more structured and potentially more commercially valuable parts of the industry.

In response, Native Nations stated clearly that commercial home-growing would not be allowed under the proposed framework. While limited personal cultivation may be permitted in some form, commercial indoor cultivation, according to the explanation given in the meeting, would take place only within centralized, regulated and supervised facilities.

That answer appeared to confirm the concern Roseburg was testing. Local participation, while possible, would not necessarily mean open-ended independence for growers who wish to build their own commercial indoor operations. Instead, the structure described to Parliament suggested that local growers would participate within a model whose main commercial parameters are already defined and controlled.

Roseburg also raised concern about how the proposal is being presented publicly. Her comments suggested unease that the framework is being promoted as an income-generating opportunity for locals, while the details discussed in Parliament point to a more restricted form of participation. In that regard, her intervention appeared to challenge whether the model is truly one of local empowerment or whether it is more accurately a model of managed local inclusion.

A system that creates jobs for locals is not the same as a system that creates local ownership. A system that allows participation is not automatically one that grants meaningful control. Roseburg’s questions reflected a concern that Parliament must be careful not to confuse the two.

Her contribution also gave voice to a broader issue that is likely to resonate beyond Parliament: whether St. Maarteners will be positioned as genuine stakeholders in a future cannabis industry, or whether they will largely serve as workers and supporting participants in an industry whose most important structures are designed and directed elsewhere.

Throughout the meeting, Native Nations maintained that local farmers would have opportunities within both the outdoor and indoor segments of the proposed framework. The company said outdoor growers would function more as entrepreneurs, while indoor participants would likely be engaged more through employment within a managed system. Roseburg’s questioning, however, highlighted that for Parliament, the central issue is not simply whether locals are present in the model, but the terms on which they are included.

MP Roseburg also questioned whether the full inter-ministerial workgroup remains active, including representatives from TEATT, Justice and VSA. She asked for a clear answer on whether all of the original stakeholders are still involved in the process and, if not, which ministries or representatives are no longer participating.

Roseburg further raised concern about the legislative trajectory of the cannabis proposal. She noted that Parliament had previously been told that legislation was on its way, but said it remained unclear what exactly was being legislated at this stage. She questioned how legislation could already be advancing while workgroups were still ongoing, especially if the process had initially been presented as a study. She therefore requested a clear written explanation of the legislative process, including what law is being drafted, what stage it is at, and how it can be at Legal Affairs while still said to be under development.

In addition, Roseburg asked for written clarification on the current composition of the workgroup, including the names of the persons representing the various ministries. She specifically referred to indications that a VSA representative may have left and asked whether a replacement had been appointed, whether VSA remains actively involved, and whether the same level of participation still exists across the ministries involved.

‍