EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Before we proceed and since this is our last Committee of the Whole, I would like to remind the members for the last time that according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the clause-by-clause review.
Mr. Curley, I think you raised your hand.
I believe that all Nunavutmiut need to understand the minister’s opening comments and what he said during our standing committee’s meeting a couple of days ago, even though there are opening comments coming from the government.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to welcome the minister and his officials to the Legislative Assembly.
I know that Inuit have been very supportive in dealing with access to alcohol and for controlled or restricted communities.
They have to have a plebiscite in order to have access.
The people who would like to order have to go through alcohol education committees and I’m sure that not all of the applicants are approved.
With that situation in Nunavut, at times, in the homes, children who are committing crimes go through the justice system because of alcohol.
There are also social workers who take away children because of alcohol abuse in the homes.
Right now, with Bill 64, we would like to expect that people will not commit as many crimes as before, but that’s not going to be the case.
I have a feeling that there are going to be more crimes committed with respect to liquor because there is going to be a liquor store opened.
Probably in the larger communities, not all communities are going to be like that, but if you sell wine and beer, whoever wants to buy it doesn’t have to go through the alcohol education committee anymore.
I have a feeling that this is not going to keep up with the education of social drinking in the communities.
I’m not exactly sure when it’s going to come into effect, but I have a concern with the bill.
I would like the minister to respond why he didn’t agree to the committee for the deletion of some of sections or clauses of the Act because there will be more money to pay.
The only thing that we agreed on was for the bootleggers to pay more fines.
The alcohol education committee stated that they wanted those sections of the Act deleted.
If the government is going to let the amendment to the Liquor Act go ahead, the minister should have listened to the committee because a majority of the standing committee voted, but the task force report is just recommendations.
People who commit crime and the people who want to quit consuming alcohol have stated that there should be a place for them to take the alcohol program.
For that reason, I hear the minister say that some of the consolidated revenue funds receive the funding for fines paid by the people who commit crime when they have alcohol.
We want to be able to try to learn to be self-sufficient and to be able to run our own government.
According to the revolving fund, there is nothing that states that the minister can say how much money is in the revolving fund.
The revolving fund consists of money that comes from various departments.
The minister does not have the discretion to take the money from the revolving fund to do this and that.
The government policy with respect to alcohol education states that there should be an action plan in place to make sure that they would put so much money per year from the revolving fund for the alcohol program.
It would be very good if the minister could do that, but if we say that they’re going to take some money out of the revolving fund, you can’t just estimate how much you can take in order to do these sorts of things.
There are going to be a lot more people who go through the corrections system when the liquor outlets open.
With respect to bootlegging, there are going to be more people bootlegging because they don’t have to order liquor from Winnipeg, let’s say, or Ottawa. They could buy wine and beer right from their community.
The person who buys the liquor, according to the legislation, could say that they can bootleg.
Whether it be imported from the south or bought in the community, it’s still bootlegging and they could still go to court.
It’s going to be more dangerous in my community if there was to be an outlet opened because they could buy wine and beer. The communities are very close together and they don’t need to have a licence to purchase those.
They can take it from my community to other communities and sell it to make money.
It becomes bootlegged wine or beer.
I am a little bit concerned about that part, so I cannot support it.
At the very last day of our session, they will have more liquor outlets in the communities, saying that the people of Nunavut can learn to become socially responsible drinkers, but I think it’s going to be a long time for them to become socially responsible drinkers.
I would like to ask the members for their support. A majority of committee members voted in favour of the motions to delete certain clauses of the bill during our standing committee meeting.
If the minister will not delete them, he should explain why it’s so urgent that the bill is passed.
General comments. Mr. Tapardjuk.
During second reading, I did not agree to the amendments of the Liquor Act. Majority rules when you vote on something.
It would have been better if we didn’t deal with this during our membership because of all the changes that have to be done.
With the respect to Bill 64, a lot of people listened to the second reading of Bill 64 and we know that we talked about this numerous times.
We figured we didn’t have any choice but to deal with this. When the minister was before our committee, we didn’t approve of it.
We know our constituents and we get their thoughts. Those are the people whom we are representing and what they want is more important to us.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I will not be supporting the amendments to the Liquor Act.
Although I asked questions, I am not really clear about who is going to look after it if they’re going to be selling wine and beer.
Will the government have their own outlet or will it be contracted out?
I know that they are already planning on receiving the money from the liquor sales once they get their beer and wine outlet.
They’re already planning this, but the question that I have has not been answered.
Who will be running it if they start selling beer and wine? The government or private individuals?
Mr. Chairman, in the minister’s opening comments, there are alcohol education committees in the communities and those are the people who give out permits and licences to bring liquor to the communities.
Just to make it clear, during the NWT days, there was a legislation that any community can have liquor in their community or it could be a dry community.
Those were the two things that we had in the community, prohibited or restricted.
The alcohol education committees and communities can say no or yes to liquor or not. There are people who are there to decide if people need some help with respect to alcohol and these are starting to change now.
What they do now have are no committees. They are to say yes or no.
Does the alcohol education committee in the community say, “I will give you alcohol and you have to follow the rules.”?
You could be prohibited or restricted in a community.
Those are the amendments that we wanted, but the department has not agreed with us.
An alcohol education committee is asked to come when there is disturbance in a home due to alcohol.
There are going to be people who are going to be like that if this is no longer in effect, but it has been given to the RCMP to deal with.
The RCMP has a lot of things to do and they’re going to have more things to do in the community.
These kinds of things have not been looked at, even though the task force stated that.
We have people who are concerned about beer and wine being more available in communities.
Why do people who want to order alcohol have to order from Rankin Inlet, even though there’s a liquor warehouse in Iqaluit?
Why can’t they order from Iqaluit? They have to pay for freight because they have to order from Rankin Inlet.
That was part of the task force discussion, but that wasn’t considered by the government.
Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues or the regular members especially, who are with us during the committee meetings, I want to say that I will not be supporting the amendment to the Liquor Act because of all the problems that have to be dealt with, that we talked about, and we still have to do that in the coming years. For that reason, I will not be supporting it.
Nunavut people have stated during the task force consultation tour of the communities that the government should respect what they have done and follow through with what they had said.
We’re on general comments. Mr. Ningark.
First of all, I would like to thank Minister Peterson.
I was one of the members of the task force that went to the communities, not because I was able to do the job and I’m not an expert on alcohol.
I would like to get some support from the people who have never consumed alcohol or who haven’t been touched by alcohol.
I was elected by the people of Kugaaruk. Some people in my constituency of Kugaaruk and Repulse Bay consume alcohol.
Although everyone did not elect me to this House, I was asked to represent them. There are a lot of people who have been touched by alcohol and their families are no longer around.
I’m just an individual and they knew that, so they elected me.
Mr. Schell and I travelled to the communities during the liquor task force to listen to the people or the community alcohol education committees.
Due to the weather, we could not go into all the communities. Sometimes, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, we have other things to do besides travelling with the liquor task force.
There were a lot of people who expected us during the community visits and I was happy that we were able to help them out.
We were told during the community visits that when the alcohol is in the bottle or if the bottle is larger and if I don’t touch it, it’s alright. It could be visible and as long as I don’t touch it, it’s okay. Even if I did touch it, as long as I don’t drink too much of it, it is okay.
Like the minister said, he said in English, (interpretation ends) “responsible use of alcohol.”
Mr. Chairman, what is responsible use of alcohol?
All of us have different definitions, different meanings, and so on.
I think it’s about safe and legal use of alcohol.
Across Nunavut, we have restricted communities, we have prohibited communities, and we have open communities, and so on.
(interpretation) We wanted to help the people, but it was really hard to want to help the parents and the grandparents.
We saw that when we went to the communities.
Also, we saw the young people. Looking at their parents, the young people looking at their parents consuming alcohol and not wanting their parents to drink too much alcohol, we saw both and we heard them talking about those kinds of stuff.
We were able to have a meeting with the young people. We went to the schools and we went to the elders, as well as women’s groups and also the religious people, such as the churches in the community.
They all know what alcohol can do, such as the women’s groups, teachers, the priest, and the Anglican ministers.
They all know the alcohol will not stop because alcohol will stay here in Nunavut. What they were looking for was not to stop alcohol, but to drink less.
It’s very hard and what we wanted to do was make it better for the people of Nunavut and the communities. (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, whether Bill 64 is only a band-aid solution for the time being, we know that the flow of alcohol will never stop flowing.
There is no way to plug it.
Why? It’s all about human nature.
Bill 64 can be amended in the future.
Bill 64 can be replaced with a new Act.
Bill 64 is not an absolute statute.
I hate to say that, but that’s the reality.
Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, is subject to the interpretation of the law at every level: territorial or the Supreme Court.
We have attended many public meetings and you see the desperate families, children, parents, grandparents, and leaders. They’re looking for ways to curtail the abuse of alcohol.
Yes, we want to remove the bootleggers, but that’s a tall order.
If we can curtail that, that’s the recommendation that we came up with as a task force.
I will support Bill 64.
Like I said before, at least that’s something that we can do for the time being.
Other leadership, perhaps, will have better remedies to deal with the relentless abuse of alcohol, not only in Nunavut, but any territory in the country and in the world.
We can at least try to deal with the problem of alcohol.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation) We are on general comments and I have no more names on my list.
We shall proceed.
Bill 64 is in your legislation binders. If you can find it, we shall proceed.
Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act.
Committee Motion 013 – 3(3): Deletion of Clause 2 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act (Curley)
Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 2 of the bill be deleted.
Just before we continue on with the motion, I have some comments to make as to the procedures.
Like I said earlier when I was speaking to the minister’s opening comments, this was defeated and the minister has to respect the Standing Committee on Legislation, but their wishes were not done.
We have to say here in this House that we have to be visible when we are in the House because we did not get our wish at the committee stage.
It states that the money from the liquor revolving fund may be used for expenses related to education campaigns and promoting socially responsible use of liquor up to a prescribed amount.
It doesn’t say that they will be or it doesn’t say that it shall be used. It says that it may be used. They shouldn’t say “may.”
Maybe it would be better that if there is no policy in place, it doesn’t say “may.”
The people of Nunavut have to know that they will have… . Why do they want us to pass this amendment? There are a lot of people who would like to take a program with respect to liquor.
That’s the first thing that should be done by the government. When you’re voting, I would like to urge you to support the motion to delete clause 2, Mr. Chairman.
Before I go to Ms. Ugyuk, Mr. Tapardjuk, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): I really wanted to move a motion, so I put my hand up, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ugyuk, to the motion.
I will not support the proposed amendment. We’re talking about responsible drinking or responsible use of alcohol.
There are a lot of people who are non-drinkers. I’ve had discussions with both sides.
What the government is proposing is the responsible use of alcohol and I will be supporting this.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Ningark. My mistake.
(interpretation ends) The last day of the sitting. Excuse me. (interpretation) Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk. I apologize.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): I’m not Ms. Ningark.
I thank my fellow Kitikmeot Members of the Legislative Assembly.
When you’re dealing with such a big issue, it is a heavy responsibility.
Of course, my colleagues each have their own beliefs and they will work hard to work on behalf of Nunavummiut.
Of course, we all have different points of view.
For myself, I used to be told and I have heard that we should not go behind everybody’s back and you have to be open about what you do. That’s good for both your body and your mind.
When you are disciplined too much and you are told you can’t do this or you can’t do that, it makes you want to do the opposite with a rebellious note.
Again, as an adult, we have to be given choices and not be overly restricted about anything.
If you are more open about your actions, it helps you both physically and mentally.
Mr. Curley is my friend who moved the motion.
I would like everyone to know that I will not be supporting the motion that is on the floor.
I would also like to make a comment about the motion that is being proposed.
This is An Act to Amend the Liquor Act and this amendment has nothing to do with my community because my community and other communities are prohibited from the use of alcohol and they don’t even have an alcohol education committee with that.
I will be supporting all of the motions because it has no effect on my community and I have not been told by my constituents either to support or to oppose any bill that will not have any effect on my community.
With that, if there is no support for my community, then there’s not much we can do with it.
Because it is not going to help all of Nunavut, I will be supporting this motion.
(interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, did you want to speak to the motion? Minister Peterson.
Yes, I just wanted to offer a few comments.
Mr. Chairman, it has been very informative and I appreciate the Committee of the Whole’s comments, your opening comments to my comments, and I appreciate the comments on Mr. Curley’s motion to delete clause 2.
I just wanted to say that this is a key component of our proposal to go forward.
The money would be used in our ongoing program, the non-legislation related items in the task force recommendations to address social responsibility and encourage people not to drink because it could have some serious repercussions in terms of FASD, drinking and driving, and violence.
This component would allow us to use funds from the revolving fund up to the prescribed amount, not an unlimited amount, because we do have to operate the Nunavut Liquor Commission, but it would allow us to put educational programs and other programs in place to help folks to understand the dangers of drinking.
It would benefit every community in Nunavut, whether it’s a wet community or a restricted community or a prohibited community, because we do know that bootleggers operate in virtually every community in Nunavut.
I have no names on my list. I now give the mover an opportunity to make a last reply, if so wished.
As I indicated earlier, at one of our committee meetings, the minister appeared in front of the committee and there were more people who were opposed to clause 2.
Even if it’s taken out of this proposed amendment, Nunavut will still go ahead. There will be some people who will not be able to get help for the misuse of alcohol.
Is there going to be education available?
There’s no mention of how much funding will be provided annually.
It’s bait that was put in front of the people over here.
The committee has indicated that they did not support this and because of that, I would like to have a recorded vote so that we will see who supports or who doesn’t support the motion.
The member indicated that he would like a recorded vote.
Are you asking for a recorded vote, Mr. Curley?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, please.
All those in favour of the motion, please rise and sit down when your name has been called.
All those opposed to the motion, please rise and stay standing until your name is called.
(interpretation ends) The rules and regulations of the House, apparently, Minister Peterson, if you want to take a vote, you have to be properly in your place in the House, in your normal place. I will seek and continue.
(interpretation) Thank you. Any abstentions?
There were 5 in favour of the motion and 12 opposed to the motion. Therefore, the motion is defeated.
We were on clause 2. Do you agree to clause 2 as amended?
I do have questions now that we have determined whether the clause will stay or not. Specifically to the idea of a liquor revolving fund, I think I have the same concern as Mr. Curley in terms of the word “may” being used.
Could the minister just confirm that a liquor revolving fund will be set up?
Mr. Chairman, the Liquor Revolving Fund already exists and this will allow us to incur additional expenses that were not allowed before.
Again, I think sometimes there are different interpretations of the law and it’s always the intention that we’re trying to get at. What are these other expenses that he is talking about?
Mr. Chairman, the expenses will be related to the purchase and selling of alcohol in Nunavut.
In terms of educational campaigns or promoting socially responsible use of liquor, will these be funds that alcohol education committees can access to work towards that goal?
Mr. Chairman, I believe that those funds could be used for supporting alcohol education committees.
Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Elliott. We have a point of order.
Mr. Tapardjuk, your point of order.
I believe clause 2 has already been voted on.
Are we going to be going back to it after the fact? Are we going to be given the right to ask questions to the minister?
Now we’re asking questions about it after the motion has been put on the floor and voted on.
If I may, as your Chairman, (interpretation) I know that there are going to be other motions afterwards.
We’re going to go through the same procedure. We would like to hear those types of questions at the beginning because they’re all similar, just different numbers.
I would like to deliberate on it without any grey areas.
I think there are going to be about five motions that are going to be proposed.
With that, we will take a 10-minute break so that I can make a decision and we can proceed smoothly afterwards.
We will now take a 10-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 15:22 and resumed at 15:36
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back. We can proceed with the Committee of the Whole.
There was a point of order.
After doing a review, as the Chairman, the point of order is out of order because we’re still on clause 2 and everyone has an opportunity to ask questions.
With that, we will proceed. I apologize for making a mistake earlier. Following our rules, Mr. Peterson can participate in the vote, even at the witness table, if he so wishes.
We will proceed then.
We are on Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act. Clause 2. Do you agree?
In regard to this clause, when you’re talking about education, campaigns, and promotion, I believe the minister had talked about and said that alcohol education committees would be able to apply for the funding. My other question is: who else will be able to apply for this funding?
Is it non-profit organizations? Will it be hamlets? If there is a treatment facility somewhere within the territory, will they be used for purchasing beds?
If you could give us some indication of what the plan is for this.
I thank Mr. Elliott for seeking clarification.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, the funds would be for used for social responsibility programs, not for building facilities and such.
I live and work in one dry community, technically dry, if you will, Mr. Chairman.
When we talk about money, money seems like it knows no boundary.
Even in a dry community, we can access this fund, can we, Mr. Chairman?
Under the social responsibility programs, it will be territorial-wide, so all communities would participate and benefit.
I will certainly support this clause.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation) Clause 2.
Committee Motion 014 – 3(3): Deletion of Clause 3 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act (Tapardjuk)
I have a motion. I would like to move that clause 3 of the bill be deleted.
I believe you remember the rules that I outlined to you.
The mover of the motion speaks first. You may proceed, Mr. Tapardjuk.
Again, clause 3 indicates that the purchaser, and I’m sure we’re talking about alcohol, carrying with him or her, if the purchaser has purchased liquor from a liquor store designated under the regulations.
On repeated occasions, I have stated that Bill 64 is only an amendment. Without doing a total review of the Liquor Act, a lot of my constituents have stated that if there should be a liquor store.
Also, the Mayor of Hall Beach wrote a letter and indicated that he was concerned about the possibility of a liquor store being opened in Igloolik. Of course, Hall Beach is very close to Igloolik that there would be a flow of alcohol to Hall Beach.