EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
With Bill 64, the Mayor of Hall Beach was the only one who responded and I’m very concerned with that.
I believe that we should delete clause 3.
With the motion and when we’re voting, I will be supporting the deletion of clause 3.
One thing that I can’t understand is that my constituents, especially in Coral Harbour, have to know or understand the Act.
I have been confused since we have been doing this about the task force. They were the ones who were going to the communities on this issue.
They went out to the communities to find out what the people of Nunavut wanted. Now, after all that, after the recommendations were made and that, it seems like we’re now lying to the people of Nunavut. We’re doing the exact opposite.
The task force indicated that the government create a totally new Liquor Act. The task force went out to the communities and that’s what the people of Nunavut wanted. I’m sure that you heard that.
The government is doing the exact opposite. We’re going to go against what the people of Nunavut said.
Is that what the government is saying to the people of Nunavut?
Mr. Chairman, my community has voted against being a restricted community for many years by way of a plebiscite. With that, they have been able to get material things instead of using it on alcohol and they’re more responsible.
They’re managing it better.
I heard one of my colleagues say that not everybody drinks alcohol, but then there is also alcohol abuse, which is being given less restriction under this clause. You can buy more alcohol. We’re saying to the people out there that our government was given a mandate to get more alcohol to Nunavut.
You’re going to be able to carry more alcohol from Winnipeg or other southern gateways and bring it to your community.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state my opinion. The people were visited by the task force. They identified what they wanted and now this government is saying the exact opposite.
If the government is going to do that to their people, it’s not going to be very good in the future.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, since we have a lot to deal with, during our standing committee meeting, there were more people who voted to have those clauses deleted and now we see fewer people in the House.
Under clause 3, we will be able to bring in more alcohol from the southern gateways. We’re talking about management.
It seems to be making the problem bigger.
I’m not mad, but in Coral Harbour, it is prohibited and I have seen a big change in the lifestyle of our community.
I’m sure it would have been a totally different case if it was a restricted community.
Again, our community being prohibited has been a benefit. I will be supporting this motion, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions in regard to the motion.
First of all, I support this motion.
It seems to be a different bill from the minister’s opening comments.
The minister stated that it’s a pilot project, but looking at this bill, it doesn’t say anything about a pilot project; whether it’s beer or wine, it says all liquor.
It doesn’t say just beer and wine.
It seems like this bill is giving more power to the minister.
Maybe these outlets would be opened within a year.
This will have to be clearly identified. My question is: sometimes there are two sides in the community; there are dry communities who choose not to have alcohol in the community and some communities are controlled with limited amounts.
If government wants an outlet open, are these people who were looking after these alcohol committee limits going to disappear?
At this time, we’re making comments to the motion and we could only speak to the motion.
Once we start going through clause by clause, then you ask questions.
At this time, we’re just going to discuss the motion only and if you have any questions later, you will have an opportunity.
Are any further comments to the motion?
As I said, whatever I said in different places, it could be changed. I could change my mind according to my wishes and wishes of my constituency and democracy within our government.
As we heard from our communities and we know that in our communities, there are bootleggers who are selling 24/7 and we don’t want to produce their names.
Are we supporting the ones who are destroying the lives of the youth and elders? They’re changing the future.
Therefore, this clause 3(a)(1) states, (interpretation ends) “store designated under the regulations.” (interpretation) This does not change the Act.
I don’t want to support those people who change lives. Therefore, I support this clause 3.
In regard to clause 3, I will not support the motion for the reason being that some communities are open or dry or controlled communities. Taloyoak is open and Gjoa Haven is a dry community. There are people who drink responsibly and they have authority to do so.
They said these are coming from the task force. We have to listen to those who are doing well also. So therefore, I will be supporting this motion.
I would like to give Mr. Tapardjuk an opportunity to make his last reply to the motion.
I just want to say a small comment.
While we’re dealing with Bill 64, I would like to ask some more questions later on.
Mr. Chairman, when you’re reviewing all of Bill 64, there are some pilot projects that are proposed. It seems obvious that maybe one or two communities will have a pilot project.
With this amendment, people can purchase alcohol, have possession, and take it home. Under Bill 65 3(a)(1), that’s what it seems to be saying. This is a concern because it was supposed to be reviewed again on whether they’re going to sell only beer and wine.
There are concerns that are being brought up on whether dry communities can have access to the beer and wine. There is nothing in this bill.
What’s going to happen with those communities? I think this wouldn’t be a concern if the whole Act was amended.
These amendments for the Act are the ones we inherited from the NWT, which hasn’t been changed since then. They have stated that they would do the review of the whole Act.
Therefore, I am lost because of the agreement that we made as a committee.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I don’t feel that we should deal with this bill.
So when you put this to a vote, I would like to have it recorded.
You were the last one to make comments.
The way I understand, you want to have a vote recorded.
For that reason, all those who support the motion, please rise and remain standing until I call your name.
All those who are against the motion, please stand and remain standing until your name is called.
There were 5 who supported the motion and there are 12 against.
Therefore, the motion is defeated.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I had a question on this and it was understandable in my preamble, according to the policy, the communities have plebiscites and they have to use this again.
If this opens and if it’s designated community A or B or C, they will be able to purchase liquor.
We are not going to use the old legislation. Will they have an opportunity to hold another plebiscite where the store is going to be?
Mr. Chairman, there would be no change to the local option.
If a community is prohibited, it is prohibited. If it is restricted, it is restricted. If it is open, it is open.
I said in my opening comments that we would consult with any community extensively before we move in that direction and there would very likely be consultations with the hamlet councils and community groups.
I think it begs the question, though, what the consultation means.
Would it involve another task force to ask these particular communities A or B or C involving some MLAs so that they are bound by the recommendations of a task force?
So my question is: if it’s a legal mechanism to consult, would the consultation be in a form of a plebiscite or just by way of official-to-official consultation?
First of all, there will not be another task force to consult with a community.
The consultations or discussions that I’m talking about would be one on one with all of the affected members of a community.
The answer that the minister just gave for some of the other concerns that other members had, you had mentioned that it would be the individual community and stakeholders within the community. What about some of the issues addressed by other members and also by the Mayor of Hall Beach in the sense that if one community that is close decides, will the closer surrounding communities be consulted as well, as they might have a part in this?
Yes, we would consult with neighbouring communities.
We are on clause 3.
Committee Motion 015 – 3(3): Deletion of Clause 4 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act (Curley)
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for clause 4, (interpretation ends) that clause 4 of the bill be deleted.
I think you remember our rules.
I give Mr. Curley an opportunity to speak to his motion.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, however, the minister or those who support the bill indicate that social responsibility should override any possible increase in crimes committed.
Alcohol-related increases in law and order enforcement, as well as social problems definitely will increase by having certain purchases of liquor in the prescribed vendors where the government controls alcohol warehouses.
It’s not an answer for Nunavutmiut.
The bill speaks some ideas that there would be some increased funding for all that stuff, but the government has not at all put forward an action plan on exactly how that’s going to work.
Without that, you cannot have funded programs, despite legislation being in front of this Committee of the Whole.
In that regard, I think my colleagues have indicated and a majority of the legislation committee, at least six of us, voted against all these four or five clauses of the bill.
I think we should be held accountable for Nunavutmiut that this bill, this clause, regardless of however it is defended, is not a good priority for Nunavutmiut.
Therefore, I urge all of you again to exercise your conscience, not just trying to find a quick solution, and vote in favour of supporting my motion.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Are there any comments to the motion?
When I took part in consultations in some of the communities in Nunavut, there were all kinds of people, all walks of life here in Nunavut. We were looking for a way to find solutions to the relentless abuse of alcohol.
One particular thing kept coming up. It is either put the bootleggers out of business or curtail it or do something about it.
People say that we know who they are, people know who they are, but people are not coming forward with these.
They don’t want to kill the source at the community level. Many people know exactly who they are.
I believe Bill 64, in its entirety, if you will, is trying to find ways and remedies to make it legal and try and get these bootleggers out of business.
In that regard, yes, I may have stated differently in committee meetings and stuff, so I think I had a chance to make my own independent review and vote in the way that I was elected. People keep saying that these people are selling liquor 24/7. It has a very unforgiving damage, especially in our youth and about their future.
Again, I will support this section of Bill 64.
I know that Bill 64 is only an amendment to the bill and people are having trouble, but we are elected to deal with any issue.
If we’re going to be worried about the people who drink alcohol and do bad things, we have to give them something to start with in solving this problem.
If we’re concerned about them as MLAs, we could promote and say that spouses should not abuse each other.
We are given some solutions and we’re able to discuss it and we appreciate that.
Therefore, I will support this motion.
I thank the members for their comments. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide some clarity here.
The task force, as I said in my opening comments, did a lot of great work and I appreciate the work they did.
They made many recommendations, but the overall theme in their recommendations was to liberalize alcohol in Nunavut, particularly the beer and wine, as I said in my opening comments.
They recognize that prohibition has not been working.
We all know of communities in Nunavut, and I have been in several of them, where they are prohibited, yet they have a huge problem with alcohol in a restricted or prohibited community. In fact, we know of one community where it’s prohibited, yet the local hamlet council will be trying to pass a nuisance by-law to address the alcohol. Regardless of what we think, the alcohol is out there.
It’s causing a lot of harm to our communities. So this is an effort, as I said, to liberalize access to alcohol and put focus on beer and wine.
We have learned from the Greenland experience where they had similar huge issues with alcohol in their country.
If they open up beer and wine stores and liberalize access to beer and wine stores, the drinking issues are reduced.
They are not eliminated, but they are giving their citizens the responsibility to learn to be more responsible.
We’re very restrictive and when people want to find alcohol or get alcohol, they will find a way.
It’s unfortunate there are bootleggers in every community. When I was Minister of Justice, I was at, they call it a scrum, I guess, a media scrum where there was literally a mountain of Smirnoff against a wall that they seized from bootleggers in this community. It was astounding to see the amount of alcohol that the RCMP seized, and then there are all of the smaller bootleggers.
There is a market out there for hard alcohol. We’re saying that we can break that market if we liberalize access to beer and wine.
That’s simply all we’re proposing to do it. We wouldn’t open up a retail store in a community where the community was against it, absolutely not. I want to allay the concerns of any members who think that the government is going to come along and open up a beer and wine store without local community input and the communities in the surrounding area.
I have no more names on my list. Does the mover have a last reply?
I just want to have this vote be recorded, please.
Thank you.  Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley.
All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing until your name is called.
All those against the motion, please rise and remain standing until your name is called.
There were five in support of the motion.
There were 12 who opposed the motion.
Going back. We are on the review of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act.
Committee Motion 016 – 3(3): Deletion of Clause 5 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act (Curley)
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I move that clause 5 of the bill be deleted. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Iksivautaaq.
We are still using the same rules for this motion, so I will not repeat them.
Mr. Curley, I will allow you to make your comments to the motion.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Iksivautaaq. (interpretation) The motion that I have is the same. It will liberalize how the alcohol is going to be purchased.
Although I understand what the minister is stating, we can’t control the people who commit crimes. It seems like we open more opportunities for more negativity for Nunavutmiut, even though we’re saying that we need to eradicate violence against women and children due to alcohol consumption.
For that reason, we used to have prohibited or restricted communities.
Under clause 5, it seems like it opens more opportunities and it’s not going to be supporting the people at the community level.
Six members of the standing committee were in support of deleting this clause and they voted according to the wishes of their constituents. For that reason, it would be better for Nunavutmiut if we delete this clause under this bill.
Before I ask if there are any more comments to the motion, I would like to remind you that if you will be speaking to the motion, you should stick to the motion and not go off topic.
At this time, are there any more comments to the motion?
I also thank the mover of the motion, my good friend.
Sometimes we speak in the House in front of the people who are watching.
Do I have a point of order?
Perhaps I can hear too clearly now.
I apologize. It was too quiet.
I know that we have authority and power at the local level, whether it be a small community or a larger community. The people at the community level can take care of themselves.
I also have stated that myself. I believe that the communities can manage themselves. I am in support of clause 5, in view of the communities’ ability, such as Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk.
I thank you for the opportunity.
Since we’re in the spirit of transparency and openness here, when I appeared in front of the standing committee, I was not just representing myself; I represented myself and six colleagues. So there were seven of us there when I was at the table and it is government legislation.
I respect the comments and the votes of the five members who voted to delete in this standing committee, but the fact of the matter is that I didn’t concur and I felt it was in the best interest of all of us that we come to the Chamber to have this discussion and debate.
I appreciate that we are here today having that conversation.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to assure members that we’re hoping that the local option that the community is restricted or prohibited will be respected.
It is not a case where the government is going to come along and open up a beer and wine store.
If the community does not wish to have that, then, again, we will not do that.
This area, this whole section here, section 5, is necessary for the government so that we can regulate what we sell. It is an important clause in this whole Liquor Act.
I was against just to amend the Liquor Act. There were too many clauses that could have been improved. The government could have come up with new legislation.
The task force consulted with the communities of Nunavut. I am sure the members of the task force are not too pleased about this because this legislation is not following the recommendations of the task force.
Mr. Chairman, under clause 5, it designates liquor stores from purchasers. I believe that we need to deal with this and discuss this further.
We do have problems. There is home-made alcohol available and it’s not even mentioned here.
Under clause 5, it designates liquor stores, not homebrew. There are a lot of social problems arising from this.
Therefore, I urge the members to support the motion to delete clause 5.
I’m not going to be in support of this motion because people just don’t consume alcohol from the stores, but they also consume homebrew too, which I know is not healthy.
Homebrew is not healthy and sometimes they drink methyl alcohol and also hand sanitizers because they crave alcohol so badly.
They’re not only young people who abuse alcohol; even adults do that in Nunavut.
I would like to see less of that occurring. I’ll be in support of clause 5.
I am going to be in support of this motion because in Nunavut, the Department of Justice, and also at the RCMP, we hear that alcohol is the major cause of crimes.
In communities that are not prohibited or controlled, there are murders that occur. Alcohol is usually the cause of the murders.
It seems like we’re providing more opportunities for such crimes to occur.
We see and hear that alcohol is the major cause of crimes. We usually hear that it causes more social problems.
We have to think very carefully. If we think very carefully about that, we wouldn’t be able to agree with that.
Does the mover of the motion, Mr. Curley, have a last reply?
This motion is self-explanatory and it’s not that complex. I move that clause 5 of the bill be deleted.
I know that there is a majority who would like to see the sale of alcohol liberalized, but being more liberal does not necessarily mean that it gets better and improves.
We get scared of people who commit crimes and when they do something wrong to the children, it becomes very scary.
Social workers are overloaded with work.
Even though the minister states that with the bootlegging fines going to the revolving fund and if the bootlegging fines would go to the revolving funds, then they could use the funding for alcohol education, coming from the fines of the people who commit crimes.
It becomes evident. Is it going to increase the number of people who have been fined or are we going to increase the number of people who are fined so that they will be getting more money from the fines?
I cannot expect to see the funds being used for education.
Also, a member from the task force had stated that 50 percent of the people who have been fined for their crimes are unable to pay for their fines.
How can we go through with it?
This clause 5 is not in support of Nunavutmiut. I urge all members to support my motion and with a recorded vote, it will be clearly on the record.
For clarity, are you asking for a recorded vote?
Chairman (interpretation): There’s a request for a recorded vote.
All those who oppose the motion, please rise and remain standing until your name has been called.
Mr. Peterson, I’m sorry. Mr. Schell.
There are 4 in support of the motion and 12 opposed.
I am sorry, my colleagues. The numbers we had were incorrect.
Just to report further, those who were in support of the motion were 5 and 12 opposed.
Moving on. We are on Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Clause 6. Do you agree?
Committee Motion 017 – 3(3): Deletion of Clause 6 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act (Tapardjuk)
I move that clause 6 of the bill be deleted.
Chairman (interpretation): There’s a motion on the floor and the motion is in order.
I will allow Mr. Tapardjuk to speak first to the motion.
I cannot really state what I kept saying. Clause 6 increases the amount of alcohol that can be brought home. It increases the allowance of amount of liquor that they can take.
Clause 6 increases the number of alcohol that can be brought home with a contravening legislation.
I am against this clause and I believe it should not even be here, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I know I haven’t said anything yet.
I’ll try to make sure that I don’t bring up any points of order, but this is definitely one of the hardest bills to date and it is interesting that it is our last one.
If you listen to all of the comments that have been made so far today, a lot of them do represent what the task force have said in its report in terms how this bill has been one of the bills that have kind of polarized all of the regular members in terms of how do you make a decision on a situation that affects everyone and all of the communities and could potentially cause harm.
At the same time, I know that one of the Tamapta Mandate words or catchphrases seems to be “self-reliance.”
I am proud that I have three communities. In Grise Fiord, it is an open community. I wouldn’t say that there are no problems, but I wouldn’t say that there are more problems than any other community where they are restricted or whether they are dry.
In terms of Resolute Bay and Arctic Bay, both are restricted. This amendment will not change it and I think that is one the things that really needs to be made clear.
Regardless of how your community is set up, with Resolute Bay and Arctic Bay being restricted, they would still require permission to bring alcohol into those communities, so it’s not an increase.
I figured clause 6, for me, was one of the ones. What do we do? Do we increase the amount that can be brought in or not?
I think that was one of most contentious one.
I have a lot of faith in my constituents that I represent and I believe in them to make the best decisions for their lives.
I do find it funny sometimes that a lot of members who do talk about being repressed by others and not treated like adults or equals want to try to do the same to other people.
I think one of the things makes this decision or makes this bill so hard in terms of deciding what to make as a vote is that a lot of people say, “The elephant in the room,” which is, “What do we do?”