EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Bill 30 – Building Code Act – Assent 2817
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Assent 2817
Bill 33 – An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act – Assent 2817
Bill 36 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2012-2013 – Assent 2817
Bill 37 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2012-2013 – Assent 2817
Bill 38 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Assent 2817
Bill 39 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Assent 2817
Honourable Eva Aariak, Honourable James Arreak, Mr. Moses Aupaluktuq, Mr. Tagak Curley, Honourable Monica Ell, Mr. Ron Elliott, Mr. Joe Enook, Honourable Lorne Kusugak, Mr. John Ningark, Mr. Johnny Ningeongan, Mr. Hezakiah Oshutapik, Honourable Keith Peterson, Mr. Allan Rumbolt, Honourable Fred Schell, Honourable Daniel Shewchuk, Honourable Peter Taptuna, Honourable Hunter Tootoo.
Before we commence today’s proceedings, I would like to ask Mr. Elliott if he could be kind enough to lead us off with a prayer, please.
Good morning to all the members.
I seek unanimous consent to proceed directly to Item 19 on the order paper.
There are none. We will now proceed to Item 19 in the Orders of the Day.
Bill 39 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
I would like to ask members to remain in their seats so that we can immediately proceed to Committee of the Whole.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good morning to the people of Nunavut and to the people who are watching and listening to the proceedings.
In Committee of the Whole this morning, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 39.
We wish to proceed with the review of Bill 39 and when complete, we will report progress.
Are we in agreement that we will deal with Bill 39?
Bill 39 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Consideration in Committee
At this time, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to begin his opening comments for Bill 39.
Good morning to you and your committee.
I am pleased today to introduce An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
This amendment to the Judicature Act will add a section intended to enhance and improve security at Nunavut’s courts.
Currently, the Sheriff of the Nunavut Court of Justice has no authority to restrict access to the court or to search anyone coming into the court.
This situation poses a danger to judges and court staff, but in particular, the current situation poses a danger to Nunavutmiut who attend the court or are subject to court proceedings.
This bill gives the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs the power to perform security screening of individuals who enter court buildings.
Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs will have the ability to control who enters court facilities and to perform metal detection screening to ensure no one brings weapons or dangerous items into court buildings.
The amendment will also explicitly restrict public access to some parts of the court building, such as judges’ chambers and prisoner detention areas.
As well, the proposed amendment includes a screening exemption for elders, lawyers, judicial officers, and judges.
It is important to note that this amendment will go hand in hand with a rigorous training program for our sheriffs.
The training, which will be administered by experts in law enforcement and security, will ensure the sheriffs have the expertise needed to conduct these searches and to properly and sensitively exercise the authority given to them in this bill.
Upon passage of this bill, the Department of Justice will begin to implement these new measures at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit, and once policy, staffing, and training are complete, the department will begin to gradually roll out these security measures in the communities when the court is on circuit.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice believes that this amendment will serve to protect the safety of all Nunavutmiut who use our court and will ensure that administration of justice can proceed in a secure and safe environment.
Do you have witnesses that you want to bring to the table with you? Minister Shewchuk.
Are we in agreement to bring in the witnesses?  Some Members: Agreed.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
The standing committee recognizes that the intent of the bill is to add court security provisions to the legislation that allow the sheriff and deputy sheriffs to provide security screening and to control access to court facilities.
The standing committee recognizes the importance of establishing an appropriate balance between the safety of people and facilities and the public’s right of access to the proceedings of our institutions.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members engaged in a thoughtful dialogue concerning these issues.
Members recognize that the government plans to provide extensive training for sheriffs and other court officials regarding these new measures.
Members urge the government and the court to approach the issue of security in a reasonable and measured manner, especially when low-risk proceedings are taking place in communities outside of Iqaluit.
As members are aware, this is not the first time that the government has introduced legislation during the current Legislative Assembly to address issues of concern that have, to a significant extent, been raised by the judiciary itself.
At a later point in our proceedings today, one of my colleagues will be moving a motion that will highlight the importance of appropriate reporting mechanisms with respect to the operations, priorities, and concerns of the Nunavut Court of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 39 to all members.
Before we proceed, Minister Shewchuk, for the record, if you can introduce your officials.
To my right, I have Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Norman Tarnow, and to my left, I have Dwayne Twerdin, Director of Court Services.
Before we proceed, I would like to ask if there are any general comments.
Yes, I want to make general comments on this matter. I also wish to welcome the minister and his officials. I also want to express my appreciation to the minister for his responses to our questions earlier in March.
At that time, we heard about several delays in court proceedings here in Iqaluit. Many people who were to appear before the courts, defendants, witnesses, including family members of the accused, were all affected with the deferral of these cases.
We are starting to hear from all over Nunavut, as well as from the statements made by my colleagues, that the continual deferral of cases can result in the accused making hasty decisions and in some cases, ending their lives. This has been brought up from time to time.
However, what I want to comment on is with respect to the cases being deferred. Whenever this occurs, more concerns and problems emerge.
This can apply to the judiciary, the legal teams, the defendants, and even the witnesses who are asked to appear before the court to provide evidence.
Due to this reason, I want all Nunavutmiut to be aware that they have rights under this area.  When the court delays the proceedings when it could have commenced with the case due to concerns, one thing I noted that was seemingly missed is the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It has been in existence for many years and it applies to all parts of Canada and to all Canadians. There are several provisions which people are not aware of or that the lawyers are not passing on to the defendants that apply to them.
There are four relevant sections within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that (interpretation ends) “Any person charged with an offence has the right,” (interpretation) and one specifically states, (interpretation ends) “to be tried within a reasonable time.” (interpretation) This applies where an accused person has the right to be tried within a reasonable time and to have the system work this out if all things fall into place.
Due to these reasons, I made a statement about these incidents where the judiciary suspended several cases due to concerns at the territorial court building.
We must not forget this principle, “within a reasonable time.”
It seems to be largely forgotten when cases are delayed. I will have questions later on, but I just wanted to make general comments on this matter, Mr. Chairman, as it is related to this bill.
Nunavutmiut have rights under the Canadian Constitution and we have to ensure that these rights are exercised, and we have to remind the court of this right.
Some cases are deferred and delayed for long periods and if we apply this right, some cases could even be thrown out. It seems that the courts are not too concerned about trampling on the rights of our citizens. I disliked what I observed at the time and that is why I am mentioning it at this time.
Last week, when I was directing questions to the minister, he obliged with good responses and he committed to finding solutions to any problems that may exist in the operations of the court.
He also identified the opportunity to discuss these issues outside of the court system.
I will stop there as that concludes my opening comments.
I believe that was just a comment and you will have an opportunity to raise questions when we review the contents of the bill. (interpretation ends) Minister Shewchuk, if you want to make a comment.
I really do appreciate the comments made by Mr. Curley and I look forward to his questions, but I do understand the message he is sending.
Bill 39 is a bill I approve of and want to support.
As my esteemed colleague, Mr. Curley, alluded to, we have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution.
He spoke to these issues during our meeting and I fully concur with that assessment, obviously.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in Canada, we also have mobility rights as Canadians, where any citizen can move to any other part of Canada to work if they are able to qualify for that job. I may move to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ottawa, British Columbia, or even Newfoundland without any fear of being beaten or placed in a dangerous situation simply for the position I was able to get.
Additionally, this includes workplace safety. In my case, I can work in this House without any pressing concerns about my workplace. Further, here in Nunavut, whenever any worker arrives to our community to work at various jobs and work orders, we have to welcome them to our community.
Similarly, the court, in this case, the employees of the territorial court or the Supreme Court are in that same position as they are undertaking their jobs here in Canada.
They do their job, work with the various prosecutor and defence teams, as well as the accused people or the defendants, without any concerns about being accosted or threatened. Exactly like everyone here, as this principle applies everywhere.
Here I am referring to workplace safety as well as mobility rights as Canadians, which mean that we can travel anywhere to work at a job, (interpretation ends) especially for peace and justice. (interpretation) We have to consider these matters, all the while remembering our fellow citizens, the people we represent, as well as the potential witnesses because we have to ensure we protect the rights of these witnesses.
Whenever a person is a witness in our court system, we can’t place them in a dangerous situation. We also can’t place any legal worker in a dangerous situation as this applies to all the people in the system.
Perhaps it doesn’t really apply today, but with the increasing population in Nunavut and our young population, we are starting to see more unruly events or dangerous situations, such as people with firearms or other weapons, that seem to be occurring with greater frequency in Nunavut.
We have to be cognizant of the trends and be prepared beforehand. At least, in my case as a legislator, I do want to be prepared. Now, whether I would be privileged enough to be voted in for a second term is something I can’t forecast.
At the very least, (interpretation ends) for peace and justice, as well as mobility rights within the country, (interpretation) we ought not to be worried about any danger when we are working at our jobs.
Therefore, I am in support of this bill.
Whenever anyone in the court system has any concerns with safety, from the judges to the court workers, they would have to defer these cases and this is not conducive to resolving our challenges.
As we know, whenever a case is continually deferred, people sometimes commit personal actions, such as suicide, due to the inability of the courts to deal with the case expeditiously.
This is what I want to know.
If Bill 39 will result in faster court proceedings, then I support it.
The hon. minister stated that more training and preparation will be needed to put these plans into place, even if it is an extremely slow process to implement these proposed changes.
If Bill 39 is passed, it will lead to preparations to do that, and if we can complete the review of this bill, it will make this a simpler process.
I intend to support this bill and I wanted it on the record. When we are reviewing this bill on a clause-by-clause basis, I won’t have any questions nor will I have any proposed amendments. I just wanted to highlight my support for this proposed legislation.
General comments. Mr. Elliott.
Again, I would have to agree with what the other MLAs have said so far this morning.
I had some specific questions around the courtroom itself. In particular, it was my understanding that there was a report on the security and different actions that could be done within the court system to make it safer and it was conducted by the RCMP.
I was wondering, through that report, whether this added to what was put into this Judicature Act.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Mr. Elliott.
May I suggest that you ask that same question when we get to the clause-by-clause [review].
Mr. Elliott, we are at just general comments right now.
It’s general comments about the opening comments of the minister and if you could tell me where and which clause to ask it in because to me, it’s not a specific question about a clause; it’s a general question about his statements on the whole Act, how the Act came about, what was put into the Act, and where guidance was given.
I’m sure there was guidance from his officials, but I’m sure there was also guidance from reports and from the court staff as well. If you do want me to wait and ask on a specific line, then tell me which section it is and I’ll mark it down so I can ask it.
What I will do, Mr. Elliott, is once we get to the clause-by-clause [review], you will be the first person I recognize and allow you to ask that question.
Thank you. Mr. Elliott.
In the fourth paragraph of your opening comments, you talked about the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs and the powers that they have to perform screening.
You also mentioned in your opening comments when you read them to us just a couple of minutes ago about the training that will go on with the court staff, specifically the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs.
Could the minister help educate us on what the current practice is for the training that’s received by the sheriffs, as well the enhanced training that would be provided?
I will allow this one to go through.
It’s a very good question from Mr. Elliott.
At present, the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are trained in various degrees and I’ll let Dwayne respond to that and exactly what that is.
This training that we plan on implementing and giving them once this Act is, hopefully, passed will be more in detail and in depth and give them more authority and sensitivity into that effect.
As for presently and what the new training will consist of, I’ll get Mr. Twerdin to respond to that too.
Mr. Twerdin.
Mr. Twerdin: Under the current practice, our sheriffs and deputy sheriffs have different levels of training, sporadic training based on employment history.
Some of our sheriffs have non-violent crisis intervention training, some have one-on-one tactical training, negotiations training, and all of our sheriffs but two have baton, pepper spray, and handcuff training.
Unfortunately the training itself has lapsed and they’re required to attend an update on several modules to ensure they have the credentials to actually carry out their functions.
The training we want them to take part in, in the event that this Act is passed, will be instructed by professionals out of the BC Justice Institute.
Currently, we are negotiating costs and dates in order for this to occur.
The BC Justice Institute is Canada’s leader in training of this nature and it will be nothing but a benefit to our sheriffs to ensure that there’s safety and security in our courtrooms and to ensure that there’s safety for all Nunavummiut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Twerdin. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, general comments.
I do have more questions over the general way in which the bill had come out and on some of the comments that he had made, but they are questions.
It seems like I’m being asked to wait until the clause-by-clause [review]. As long as I’m not being called out of order because I’ll be asking questions about clauses that don’t necessarily refer to the questions I’m asking. That’s fine by me.
I will wait. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) General comments.
We can now begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill 39.
It is in your white binder.
I have the English copy, so I will be reading it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act. (interpretation) Beginning with clause 1.
Getting back to the report that the RCMP had conducted on, I believe it was the Iqaluit courthouse, which, I think, for the amendments that we’re talking about, is basically for security in Iqaluit, were there any specific recommendations in that report that are reflected in the current Act that we’re amending?
Again I’ll have opening comments here and then I can pass it on to Mr. Twerdin.  In regard to the RCMP report, I’m fully aware of it and have reviewed it.
That report came out of an inventory inspection, I believe, that was done during the time that the new RCMP office was being built, and then while those people were here, I think the RCMP requested them to do an assessment of the courthouse. So that report is done.
This bill that we’re dealing with today was in the works before that report was done and it addresses some of the concerns that are outlined in that report. So I think it goes hand in hand. Some of the concerns that are identified in there, I think, will be addressed by this new Act.
Mr. Twerdin, can you add to that?
Mr. Twerdin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The RCMP report was a report that was submitted after we started the creation of this bill.
The RCMP report outlined issues in the current Nunavut Court of Justice facility.
The justice staff was aware of the current diagram of the building and the issues within the diagram, and the RCMP confirmed the issue that needs to be resolved.
Essentially, it supports the need for us to make enhancements to the building and to ensure that we have the safety and security in our only courtroom facility in Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Twerdin.
Mr. Twerdin mentioned about enhancements to the current facility of the courthouse.
Are those reflected in the capital budget for minor capital that we approved in the House in terms of those changes and the money has been allocated to fix those concerns and problems?
There has been money identified for minor capital and approved and that will be going towards enhancing some of the issues in the courthouse.
Getting back to the training and assistance provided to the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, I believe he mentioned pepper spray and the handcuffs. The individuals will be looking for, according to the definition of this section, weapons.
Are the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs going to be required to carry a sidearm on them or a weapon much like RCMP or will they be issued with tasers, or are there other means that they are being taught to handle a violent altercation?
In the law enforcement field, there is what’s called the use of force continuum.
What that does is you start out with verbal commands and talking to somebody, and then it escalates into different levels of security and safety issues and how to deal with them.
They will be having verbal judo training, which is talking to each other. They will be getting pepper spray training and they will be getting handcuff and baton training, and in that comes self-defence training too.
At no point, which the last force in the force continuum is deadly force, will they be getting any training in and receiving side arms.
In some of the standing committee meetings we’ve had on this bill over the past couple of months, you had mentioned that the costs incurred for what would happen with this bill for the training and for PYs would be held within the budget that you currently have, so you won’t be coming back for supplementary appropriation.
In terms of increased PY’s, is there a plan to hire more sheriffs and deputy sheriffs?
The member is right; the costs are going to be internal.
We expect minimal costs and even in supplying the training, we can do that. At present, there are going to be no staff increases and, of course, that will be assessed as we roll this out and, if there needs to be at a future date, it would come through an FMB submission.
When they’re travelling for courts outside of Iqaluit, will the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs be travelling with the judges for all court cases or will it be certain cases that will be deemed higher risk that they will actually travel on?
I’m thinking again of the costs that would be hidden in terms of an added person’s salary. Sometimes with charters, you would have to fit people onto planes and whether the planes are adequate in size to fit the whole court circuit. You would also have hotel rooms that they have to overnight and per diems.
It kind of adds up after a while. I’m just wondering what the department will be doing to handle that aspect of the courts outside of Iqaluit.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I thank him for that question and concern.
The sheriffs and deputy sheriffs will not be travelling to all court proceedings in communities, but they will be going to very serious ones where there are jury trials happening and going on.
I have a few questions on this clause as well because it defines the court facility.
Does that refer to standard court facilities wherever the territorial court proceedings are being held and it’s not confined to one region or one community or one city or location in Nunavut?
It does refer to all court facilities and that would apply to what facility and what building that the Nunavut Court of Justice rents when we deem it a court facility. So we would determine what that court facility was. In most communities, it is a community hall or gymnasium or hamlet office and usually that doesn’t change.
With that too, when we’re providing security into the future, we would get floor plans of all of those buildings and assess it with the court.
I appreciate that. It’s good to clarify that.
What I’m concerned with is that I’m not sure how flexible the court system or court parties are in relocating from one location to another.
In this particular case, I believe the reason for speeding this bill is the event that occurred here in March here in Iqaluit when the territorial court judge was about to hear an important homicide case and issues related to security then were raised a number of times.
Why was there a need to have that case moved from Rankin Inlet to Iqaluit in the first place?
Without getting too much into specifics of anything, it is my understanding that the venue was changed at the request of the accused’s counsel.
So respecting that request, I believe that’s why it was changed.
I believe it’s ultimately the territorial court judge who makes the decision.