JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 24, 1998

• 0917

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Today we are welcoming, from the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, Nora Sanders, deputy minister of justice designate, and a former resident of southwestern Ontario; and Rebecca Williams, who is assistant deputy minister of justice designate. We also have, from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Allan Maclure, who is counsel, and Leena Evic-Twerdin, who is an adviser, policy and program. I want to welcome you all. We also have with us an interpreter who is going to interpret Rebecca's opening statement, which will be in Inuktitut. Am I correct?

A voice: She will interpret both Leena's and Rebecca's statements.

The Chair: Okay, great. We're going to start out slowly. You'll be able to turn on the English or French channel and get the translation, but in Nunavut they operate in more than two official languages.

All right then, we're prepared to receive your brief and we'll have questions following. Nora, if you want to get your gang organized there—

Ms. Nora Sanders (Deputy Minister of Justice Designate, Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut): Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee today and speak to you about Bill C-57. As the chair has indicated, I'm Nora Sanders, deputy minister of justice for Nunavut. With me is Rebecca Williams, assistant deputy minister. We're very pleased this morning to be here as part of a delegation with the representatives of Nunavut Tunngavik, Leena Evic-Twerdin and Allan Maclure.

I'm pleased to be able to appear before you this morning looking as I do. Last night when we travelled from Iqaluit, my suitcase, for unexplained reasons, went to Kimmirut. I was in my jeans and typical travelling gear and made a desperate call last night to Lois Leslie, the lawyer who has assisted us in Ottawa with many of these matters. She arrived this morning with a full outfit so I could be properly respectful of the committee this morning.

The Chair: We would have seen you in your jeans, Nora.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Thank you, Shaughnessy.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): It has never bothered me.

The Chair: We have a problem with Chuck overdressing for committees.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Rebecca and I are here today on behalf of Jack Anawak, the Interim Commissioner for Nunavut. He's travelling in the high Arctic today and was unable to attend. You can understand that the pace of things these days means he's generally expected to be in two or three places at once. I know he would have liked to have been here today because he feels strongly about this bill and the new court process.

• 0920

We represent a government in waiting, or maybe it's more accurate to say a government in preparation. What we're doing right now is getting the Department of Justice ready to be fully operational as of April 1 in Nunavut. In our work we're guided by the blueprints set out by the Nunavut Implementation Commission. They wrote a document called Footprints in New Snow and they have a revised version called Footprints 2, which is our general guide. We're also guided in our work by the three parties to the Nunavut Political Accord: the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

In the letter of direction the interim commissioner received when he was appointed in April 1997, it was indicated to him by the DIAND minister that it was essential that the Government of Nunavut be equipped with a fully functioning justice system from the start-up. That's our responsibility, and the legislation we're here to talk to you about today is a part of that.

In its Footprints 2 report, the Nunavut Implementation Commission expressed support in principle for the unification of the court system in Nunavut as far as practicable. They also recommended that there be a meeting convened by the interim commissioner to have discussions to find out whether there was support within Nunavut for such a measure.

I'm not going to go into detail about that meeting right now because I think when Rebecca speaks she'll tell you more about it. There was a meeting held last November. At that time I attended as a representative of the Government of the Northwest Territories, where I was then situated. Rebecca convened the meeting. I guess it's obvious from the fact that we're here today that there was support from those present from different parts of Nunavut for the notion of a single-level trial court for Nunavut.

I thought I'd tell you a little bit about the rationale for having a single-level trial court. To start, I thought I'd tell you a little bit about what the courts are like now to give you an idea of our size and scope.

Right now in Nunavut there's only one judge, and that's a territorial court judge based in Iqaluit who serves the Baffin region only. Baffin is one of three main regions in Nunavut. The territorial court, which is equivalent to the provincial court, for the other two regions comes out of Yellowknife, which is obviously outside of Nunavut. All the Supreme Court in Nunavut is served by judges from Yellowknife. So you can see that whichever way we did it, whether it was a single-level court or the two levels we're accustomed to, we'd have to build up some sort of an infrastructure in Iqaluit or Nunavut to serve Nunavut. Right now, all the Supreme Court documents are filed in Yellowknife. There isn't even an office in Nunavut where you can file your pleadings.

Although Nunavut is a vast territory, there are only something in the order of 25,000 people. There are 27 communities, none of which are connected by a road other than Arctic Bay and Nanisivik, which is a mine site. Otherwise the travel is all by air, snowmobile or boat. Iqaluit, which is our capital, has a population somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 people.

We're going to start out with two judges initially and we will add a third judge within the first year, once we have the infrastructure fully in place. I wanted to tell you that because I think it's pretty clear it's a pretty small system to run with two levels of court. So there are practical reasons why we think the single-level court will work better for us. You can imagine the scheduling issues of organizing circuits to 27 communities if you had three judges in two different levels. It would be a problem.

One of the things in Nunavut that's a problem anyway is the perception that the justice system we have is overly complex. It's not well understood by many people. We think the single-level trial court that will be created by this legislation will be a simpler system.

• 0925

The current system is not well understood by the people of Nunavut. It tends to be confusing when the judge and court party arrive. They can only deal with certain kinds of cases, and another judge and another court party have to come another time to deal with other kinds of cases that are outstanding in that community.

We think if the court is simpler it will be better understood, and that will make it more accessible for the people of Nunavut. It will also give more flexibility to the judges, and it's hoped it will make the court more efficient, resulting in a shorter time between first appearance and trial, and fewer delays.

The Nunavut Court of Justice will still be based on fly-in circuits. They will travel to the community so they can deal with the cases where they arise. That part won't change. But what we want to do, along with this initiative of a single-level trial court, is beef up the justice of the peace program. Right now all communities have justices of the peace, often more than one, but there is quite a range as to the types of functions the JPs perform. A lot of that has to do with the training and support they've received.

They are presently designated by the chief judge of the territorial court, which will be the senior judge of the new court, to perform different kinds of functions. There are three levels. The highest level can conduct trials and hold youth court and so on. The youth court is actually a new measure, and the first training for JPs in youth court work is taking place in Iqaluit this week.

We will be staffing a position of a JP administrator, somebody who will work closely with the senior judge and also work with the JPs in their communities to be a contact person and adviser, organize training for them and so on. We think with this broader range of support, which won't happen overnight but I think will develop, JPs will have the confidence to deal with more kinds of cases.

The advantage of that is if the case is dealt with by somebody in the community, it will be dealt with in a shorter time and in a context that's more familiar to the people coming before the court. We see that as a complementary measure. It's not part of this legislation, but it's a complementary measure to the creation of the single-level trial court.

As you know, implementation of the single-level trial court requires amendments to both federal and territorial laws, and of course we're here about the federal bill today. Right now a companion bill is going through the Northwest Territories legislative assembly. In fact, their committee is going to be reviewing it on Thursday of this week. It replaces the old NWT Judicature Act. It eliminates the Territorial Court Act, but preserves any necessary features from that act in the new legislation.

Both sets of legislation have been reviewed in considerable detail on a regular periodic basis by a multi-party working group. Those who you see at this table from the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut and NTI, the Government of Canada—both DIAND and Justice—and obviously the Government of the Northwest Territories have been involved.

There was also consultation on the legislation with the judiciary, the Law Society of the Northwest Territories, and in particular the members of the bar in Nunavut. The Nunavut Social Development Council was provided with copies of the legislation and had an opportunity to comment. We understand Justice has also consulted on this bill with other jurisdictions in Canada, so they're aware of it as well.

I'm very pleased that we're here today with the representatives from NTI. That shows you, I think, a little bit of the process we've been through. We've had some very active and detailed discussions during the course of reviewing these bills, and in the end we've all come to a point where we're pleased with the result and content that this legislation should go ahead. We're very pleased with this precedent of a process that has led to this kind of consensus.

• 0930

I know that tomorrow you'll be hearing from Goo Arlooktoo, who is Minister of Justice for the Northwest Territories. His representatives have, of course, also been part of that process. He'll be expressing a similar message.

We're satisfied that Bill C-57 has had the benefit of extensive review, both by the multi-party working group and by other stakeholders. The open, respectful, and meaningful way that Justice officials conducted that consultation process was significant, and it contributed very much to the result you see before you.

I don't propose today to go into detail about the amendments. I know that you've had thorough briefings from Justice officials. I just thought I'd mention a couple of points that are significant to us.

First, a key objective of the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut in participating in the development of Bill C-57 was to see that the legislation does not negatively affect the substantive rights of Nunavut residents. We're satisfied, after the detailed discussion and the consultation with members of the bar and so on, that it does meet that objective as drafted.

Second, there are some important transitional provisions that are refined in this legislation. This will provide a greater flexibility that will be important in setting up the new court. So we're pleased about that.

The Nunavut Court of Justice is the new name of the court. We think it's going to be more responsive to the needs of the people of Nunavut. We think Bill C-57 preserves the substantive and procedural rights of our people. The enactment of Bill C-57, together with its companion territorial legislation, will ensure that the necessary legislative framework is in place to implement a critical component of Nunavut's justice system. This is one more very exciting step toward the creation of Nunavut.

So we urge the committee to support the speedy passage of the bill. I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

I'm going to now call on Rebecca Williams to speak. Once you've heard from her and our colleagues from NTI, we'll be pleased to answer any questions or receive comments as well.

The Chair: Rebecca, you can start when you're ready.

Ms. Rebecca Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice Designate, Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut); (Interpretation): Good morning. Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to come here.

My name is Rebecca Williams. I'm the assistant deputy minister of justice. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today about the Nunavut Court of Justice and the process we used to include Inuit in designing a court that makes sense to us and considers our needs and ways of life.

• 0935

I'm also grateful to be here with Leena Evic-Twerdin and Allan MacLure from Nunavut Tunngavik.

I have worked with the justice system in the north since 1982, with the territorial and NWT superior courts, with justices of the peace, and with probation and parole services. During those years, I participated in the justice system and in the courts, working in such areas as criminal justice and child welfare. As an Inuk, I also have the experience of observing myself, my relatives, and the conditions of life and challenges that Inuit people face.

The work we have done together in preparing for the Nunavut Court of Justice is very special to me. In my experience, it is the beginning of real involvement of Inuit in the content of our own justice system.

To help you understand this, I will explain to you some background about justice in Nunavut. For many years, the justice system in our territory has been operating and impacting on us, but not listening to us. There has been no way for the justice system to receive input from the Inuit. Many things contributed to the silencing of Inuit in the operation of the justice system. They would take much longer to explain than I have here today.

For us, the result of being silent receivers of the justice system has too often been silence in our communities—silence about social problems, silence about bad behaviour and people who hurt, silence about our own disputes and how to resolve them. Inuit did not know how to use the system that was created for these things. The whole system operated outside of our communities and our culture.

• 0940

In many of our communities the justice system was treated as someone else's responsibility and someone else's problem. Incarcerated persons and even victims are often taken away from us, even today. At the same time, we see that our relatives with a legal problem have too long a wait to get things resolved. Often worse things happen while they are waiting.

We hear that the combined number of federal and territorial inmates is now in the area of 200. We hear from Correctional Service Canada that we now have a higher rate of violent crimes and a higher rate of imprisonment than elsewhere in Canada. We know that the conditions for those people are overcrowded, and they are not healed. We see that many times they come back to us behaving worse than when they left.

My experience in trying to implement policies designed without input from Inuit is that it doesn't work.

The process we used to develop the Nunavut Court of Justice was revolutionary in our history because it involved Inuit. Inuit were able to express what kinds of systems they needed to handle conflicts and to work for peace and safe communities in the future. The process itself has given me hope about the future of our public government in Nunavut. From this process I learned ways of bringing our time of silence to an end.

• 0945

In August 1997 the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, Jack Anawak, gave me the task of advising him about the system for Nunavut. We wanted a system that would make sense to all the citizens of the new territory. Since that time, our values have been set out in the pamphlet called “Mission for Nunavut”. It is available to those of you who would like a copy.

I organized the meeting where these very measures we are discussing here today were first considered. This was the consultative meeting on justice in Nunavut that took place in Iqaluit from November 18 to 19, 1997.

Over 50 people participated. They included all kinds of workers in the current justice system, persons with knowledge of court reform and other reform efforts elsewhere in Canada. Most importantly, there were many Inuit representatives and persons with experience in Inuit social organizations.

The meeting was facilitated by a group called Tatigiit. I'm very proud of that group. I was part of it and involved with those organizing the meeting. I'm very pleased that Leena Evic is also here. She worked with us on this as well.

The title of our report was “Justice That Brings Peace”.

• 0950

It was amazing to me how, with cooperation and mutual respect, we were able to come to a consensus about the kind of court system that could meet the needs that were brought to our meeting.

Our conclusions were then expressed in recommendations 11 to 26 of the Interim Commissioner's document called “Footprints 2”.

I am anxious to see this legislation passed in its present form.

I believe our efforts have produced a court system that will work for Inuit. I believe it has the potential to incorporate the best of contemporary knowledge about court systems and dispute resolution. I believe that our process in developing the court system was shaped by, and belongs to, all the residents of Nunavut. I believe it has the potential to bring justice back to our communities and families.

I am also excited by the positive feedback and harmonious feeling created by our process, and I would like to see that continue as well.

I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation, and I would like to thank Martha Flaherty for interpreting for me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Thank you, Ms. Williams.

Leena Evic-Twerdin.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin (Adviser, Policy and Programme, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.); (Interpretation): Good morning. First, I would like to express my gratitude for being given the opportunity to speak in my language. Thank you.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Office of the Interim Commissioner and the Department of Justice of the Nunavut government for our joint efforts. I would also like to thank the Nunavut Implementation Commission for having the courage to be as creative as they were. We are implementing the model they recommended.

• 0955

Finally, I would like to thank Martha Flaherty for being our interpreter.

I am pleased to make this first statement. I am happy for the people of Nunavut, for they will be able to see a new structure of the court system in our community.

After the successful passage of Bill C-57, we will be witnessing the implementation process for establishing the single-level trial court system. This is good, for it's an integral part of our nation-building.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. was established as an entity in 1993. NTI represents the Inuit of Nunavut. It plays a leadership role for the Inuit of Nunavut, and it promotes a prosperous and stable future for the well-being of the Inuit of Nunavut. NTI is charged with the responsibility of implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

I have had the pleasure of working for NTI since the establishment of its office in April 1993, with one year of leave in between.

Since then I have seen much development produced from the implementation of the claim. The claim has contributed to successful ownership of programs and services in Nunavut through various organizations.

The creation of Nunavut carries two important elements for us: Inuit will have ownership and management of their land and environment, and a new government will be established.

The three signatories to the Nunavut political accord, the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and NTI, all have obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

• 1000

Before the establishment of Nunavut responsibility, I saw many Inuit with no sense of direction of where they wanted to be in the future. But since the establishment at Nunavut, I now see many Inuit having the vision to move forward.

Their hope is carried through their expression: we now have Nunavut. It's clear that Nunavut is their vision, their future.

In the traditional life of the Inuit, the Inuit of Nunavut manage their own lives and their own future.

Today we still have many Inuit who come from that very world, and many of them still have the wisdom and knowledge of life without crisis. They have the knowledge of personal responsibility and the responsibilities of others with respect and completion.

From knowing who we are, we do many things in Nunavut. To name a few, we develop programs, health and wellness initiatives, and healing and suicide prevention. We have had to come to take on these types of initiatives, because somewhere in the midst of being controlled through government services and programs, many Inuit lost their sense of well-being.

From knowing who we are, with the skills and ability to live proactively before any crisis arises, from having the wisdom to use effective teaching and learning tools, we came to a period where we felt lost and without ability. Many lives have suffered as a consequence of that disempowerment. We are often reminded that Nunavut has the highest rate of suicide and other social problems.

• 1005

Today we are beginning the process of reclaiming our identity and our ways. The opportunity that is unfolding in front of us is allowing us to begin the process.

Nunavut is that opportunity, and everything that falls under the establishment of Nunavut is a chance for a positive impact on the future of the Inuit.

The successful passage of Bill C-57 will mean a better opportunity for Nunavut and its people. That is why we are here to encourage you to support the bill.

The model of the court structure Nunavut is proposing will provide more ownership to communities through more responsibilities for the justice of the peace, training of the justice of the peace, Nunavut judges residing in Nunavut, a more defined administrative system, and, naturally, the system having a closer relationship with the communities.

Ms. Martha Flaherty (Interpreter): Ms. Evic-Twerdin will now give you another brief statement in English.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin: No doubt you have heard from, or will hear from, lawyers of the federal and Nunavut justice departments. NTI agrees with them that the creation of a single-level trial court will not deprive residents of Nunavut of legal rights enjoyed by other Canadians.

You should know, though, that the impetus for the single-level court system came from the people of the Nunavut settlement area. This bill responds to the general consensus that the single-level model would better serve the interests of the people of Nunavut and the administration of justice in Nunavut.

The process by which this legislation comes before you has been one of extensive consultation and review, as was well stated by both Nora and Rebecca. Over the course of many months, lawyers and staff from the federal Departments of Justice and Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Nunavut Department of Justice, the Department of Justice of the Northwest Territories and NTI have worked cooperatively and cohesively. Teleconferences, the wonders of e-mail, and a face-to-face meeting in Ottawa paved the way. In these sessions draft legislation has been studied, reviewed, and discussed quite literally on a line-by-line basis.

NTI has found the process to be thoughtful, productive, and very much Nunavut-focused. It has been a very worthwhile exercise and will no doubt benefit both the people of Nunavut and the administration of justice.

The legislation working group has been motivated by a strong commitment to the future of Nunavut. This commitment is very much a reflection of the commitment of the Government of Canada, the Office of the Interim Commissioner, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and NTI.

An example of this commitment may be found in the idea of holding a conference of the working group in April 2001, to review matters relating to the administration of justice in Nunavut. The conference would include the federal Departments of Justice and Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Justice of Nunavut, NTI, and perhaps other stakeholders, such as the judiciary. We support this.

• 1010

Ms. Martha Flaherty: Once again, I will interpret for Ms. Evic-Twerdin.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin (Interpretation): In conclusion, I'd like to say that we worked well with our officials and with the Government of the Northwest Territories on the necessary amendments, which has brought us this far.

Our participation is that upon the passage of Bill C-57, we will experience the whole process to its final stage.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Leena.

Allan, do you have a statement to make?

Mr. Allan S. Maclure (Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.): I have very little to add to what has been said. I agree with it wholeheartedly.

I came into this process about five months ago when I joined NTI, and I can say that my participation with the working group was a very useful and fulfilling experience. It was one that led me to wish I had been involved from the outset, rather than coming in just five months ago. It's a very cohesive group and very attentive to the matters at hand, and it's a process I'm very happy to have been a part of.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Now we can entertain some questions from members of the committee.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing here. It's nice to see you.

I just have some general questions. I'm sure that Mr. McKay and Mr. Lee have some legal things they want to talk about.

I'm hearing you say that this will be more responsive to the needs of the people of Nunavut. Perhaps you could give me some concrete examples as to how this will benefit the average citizen in terms of delays, costs, and things like that, if you have any information like that.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Maybe I can start to speak to that. First of all, you must know that this isn't the be-all and end-all. This is one part of it. These amendments are a fairly technical part of it.

I think the key thing is to think what would have happened if we didn't do it, and I've tried to allude to that, which is that we'd have an overly complex system and higher costs from having to arrange different courts in different circuits. There is also the fact that it's a simpler process. When the judge comes in, they know that's the judge. So it's better known and better understood.

We think by giving more flexibility to the judiciary for scheduling and so on, it'll give more scope to those judges. One wants to be careful, because the judiciary, of course, is independent and so on. But there's also a precedent for them to establish some relationship with the communities. The territorial court judge, who's currently based in Iqaluit, routinely sits on a panel with elders. That has been done by a Supreme Court judge in Nunavut, but it isn't the general practice of the Supreme Court. We think that having a simpler judicial process will provide more scope for those kinds of things.

As I mentioned, part of it also is having the opportunity—and it's not part of the legislation—for the JPs to be further trained and to fulfil a bigger role. We see that these judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice will play a role as mentors to the JPs, and we'll know them individually and so on. It will be a small enough system where that's possible.

As to statistics, I'm not sure how much we can tell from that, because our numbers are fairly small in the scheme of things, in the sense that it's a small jurisdiction. But we think those are the kinds of things that will make a difference.

• 1015

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I was thinking of it in practical terms, such as the delay getting to trial, the delay to be heard. Is there a substantial delay now, and will that be reduced under the new system?

Ms. Nora Sanders: We're probably not any worse off than anywhere else in Canada as far as the delay is concerned. But whether or not that's good enough is the issue. Certainly, any time I've been to a community meeting where we've talked about justice, the delay of getting to trial is one of the things that comes up. We're all aware of individual situations where it has been extremely difficult on individuals or families. I think part of the delay is in waiting for something mysterious that's coming from somewhere else, and you don't know what the outcome is going to be.

If we had the two levels of court, my feeling is that in a small jurisdiction such as ours the delays would be even worse. When there's a greater effort to have minor cases dealt with by JPs, that's another part of coping with the delay. Because these judges will have the flexibility to handle every kind of case, and also having the JPs take on a bigger role, that will avoid some of the delays

Mr. Chuck Cadman: In the final two presentations I was hearing a lot about what I consider to be restorative justice initiatives. Now, to me, the issue of restorative justice gets into a whole different area from actual court restructuring. So are we talking about a completely new system of justice operating up there as opposed to just different courts?

Ms. Nora Sanders: Maybe I'll speak to that, and then Rebecca or Leena may want to add something as well.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm familiar with restorative justice, so you don't have to explain that to me. I'm just concerned that this goes beyond just restructuring courts and that we're talking about a whole new system that maybe other Canadians don't have access to.

Ms. Nora Sanders: You'll find that it's hard for us to totally compartmentalize things. As you point out, this legislation doesn't create restorative justice. It creates a new superior court, but it gives that court broader jurisdiction.

There are lots of restorative justice initiatives already under way, and we hope to enhance and develop those further as Nunavut comes into being. We see this as a complementary thing. In other words, by simplifying the formal process a little bit, it provides scope for more activity in the area of restorative justice, but it doesn't in itself do that.

So that's what I wanted to say, and, Rebecca, you may want to add something as well.

Ms. Rebecca Williams: Right now there are community justice groups in place in all the communities in Nunavut, and those are taking a lot of diversion from the RCMP. So that's one part.

I think the real change will be happening at the community level. That will be complemented by the Nunavut Court of Justice being able to work more closely with more people in the community.

Right now the situation is that the territorial court goes in to three communities, let's say, in the high Arctic, and that will cost $22,000. If a preliminary inquiry were deferred for another time, you would wait another four to six months to get to that. For that court there would be the same cost again. Then it goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will fly in for another $15,000. I can see that some of the costs could be cut, because maybe the preliminary inquiry and trial can happen at one time.

But there are many initiatives that are happening already as far as community justice groups being active is concerned.

Mr. Allan Maclure: It may also, I would think, contribute to the ability of the bench to have a greater understanding of the communities they serve. Having one level of court, they're dealing with the full spectrum of legal issues that might come before a court. They're not divided according to territorial or Supreme Court jurisdiction.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have just one more question. With a new system like this being implemented, I would anticipate that some bugs and glitches will crop up every once in a while. Just how do you propose to monitor that and to address it if you do find problems?

• 1020

Ms. Nora Sanders: We're in the process of setting up the administration right now, and you're probably right, it's like everything. Part of how we propose to deal with it is having open communications within the system. We will at times need to rely on judiciary from the Northwest Territories to come and assist with matters as well.

There will be a process in place for evaluation in the longer term, and I know the Department of Justice is already doing some work in that regard. We are also working with the Government of the Northwest Territories to develop a new justice information system to keep the court statistics. Part of the difficulty we're going to have initially is that the system currently in place won't lend itself well to this process. We hope by April 1 there will be a new system available, at least in pilot form. That will at least provide us with the information.

So I guess there are some concrete things, and we're also going to have to work on a lot of common sense and cooperation from those involved.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the panel as well. I found your presentation to be fascinating, very insightful, and it gave us a lot of detail as to what's been done up to this point. So I congratulate you on the depth of your presentation.

I have a couple of specific questions and some more general ones, so I'll start with the general. I'm interested in the type of training that will be made available for JPs, and for the judges as well, in terms of sensitivity to the traditional cultures of Nunavut. Further to that, is there training or special allowances that will be made to bring more aboriginal people into the actual system, in those traditional roles of lawyers and judges?

Ms. Nora Sanders: Perhaps I could start again with that one. The JP training will be tuned a little bit to the needs of the individuals. One of the first things we have in mind is a needs assessment, and we've been discussing this with the Department of Justice Canada. They're going to assist us in that early part of the process to talk to the JPs who are currently in place and determine what their needs are.

But I would say, without having done that, one of the things we identify is that a number of people don't feel comfortable actually conducting a trial or a proceeding where they're going to receive representations. So I think some of the training will be geared toward that, and it'll be partly instruction in the procedures and that kind of thing, and partly an opportunity to take part in mock proceedings and to sit with a more experienced JP, and at times perhaps with a judge.

So it's a range of things, and it will be tailored to individuals, but we'll also have sessions where groups come in. I think the JP training that's taking place in Iqaluit this week is for Baffin JPs who are going to be preparing to do youth court for the first time and getting a refresher in trial procedures generally. Those are the kinds of things we'll be doing.

We're hoping that by having a JP administrator in place, that person will be a ready contact whom they'll feel comfortable calling. They'll also have access to the judiciary at times. I know just from observing what goes on with the judge of a territorial court who is currently in Baffin that there's quite a close relationship with the JPs, and they would quite often discuss, of course, not the particulars of a case as far as what that JP should decide, but how to handle certain procedural issues, and those kinds of things. We hope to build on that situation and have a more constant process of support available.

To put it simply, with the training for the judges, we'll need to see who is appointed and what their needs are to know what is going to be needed. But certainly, as with pretty well all professionals who come from the outside to work in Iqaluit, you'd normally arrange to take somebody new to do training. If you're like me, it may not make you fluent—far from fluent, says Martha—but it will give you a better understanding of the culture and where things are coming from, and even an understanding of some of the realities of interpretation that you need to know for court, some of the terms that could be interpreted different ways, ways of asking questions. For instance, if you frame a question in the negative, it won't come out right and people won't know whether they're supposed to say “yes” or “no”, and those kinds of things.

• 1025

So those are standard things for pretty well any legal professional.

The question of bringing Inuit into the formal system is a very key one. It's also a longer-term one.

We've been discussing with Justice Canada the possibility of some sort of scholarship program and so on. Those details are not worked out, and those things cost money. But it is a worthwhile investment and it's certainly part of the future.

We're also doing things within the department. We have a priority to staff positions with Inuit. We're trying to recognize that even positions that traditionally have been assumed to require a lawyer perhaps don't. Perhaps somebody with some other experience working within the system has just as much to contribute, and perhaps they have more to contribute if in fact they bring an understanding of the culture and the language and so on of the people. So we're trying on a number of fronts to make some differences there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. Allan MacLure: If I could add, with respect to your concern about the cultural sensitivity of the judges, there will be room within the judicial advisory affairs consultation process for consultations to occur throughout the communities. That will in part, we think, contribute to enhancing cultural sensitivity.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That leads to another, bigger picture question I have and that's on the infrastructure itself. I've spent some time in Baffin and in the high Arctic, and I was thinking in particular of assembling a jury panel in a place like Arctic Bay, or Nanisivik, or Pond Inlet. I'm trying to picture how you would be able to get an impartial panel to assemble a jury and of the whole question of the different elections and having the same judge hear a preliminary inquiry and then a trial. I'm thinking of what practical biases might exist in that situation.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Part of that doesn't relate to the new accord. The matter of selecting a jury has been there all along, and we have a very high proportion of jury trials compared to other jurisdictions. But you're quite right, it's a big challenge getting the juries, and it's a big challenge instructing them so that people understand clearly and so on. But it's done, and you do your best. Interpretation is a very key element in jury trials, of course.

That's not necessarily going to be either better or worse as Nunavut is created. But it's one of those things we constantly work on, and I think it has to do with that bigger area of having a system that's better understood by people generally and that makes people better able to participate as jurors, as well as participants in the court.

In terms of things like how I handle preliminary inquiries and so on, of course it may be a different judge, and my guess is it would be an exception where it would be the same judge doing the prelim as does the trial. My sense is that this is the sort of thing the judges would be fairly careful about. They're aware, of course, of the potential for bias or the appearance of bias. I know there is precedent. In northern Quebec they have sometimes done this, so it's not without precedent. But I know that will be handled carefully.

I think it's part of that bigger thing of just giving more flexibility, and I think in most cases it would be a different judge doing the prelim from the one who would do the trial eventually.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have concerns, I suppose as an extension of it, where a judge is coming in for a certain sitting and maybe hearing family court and youth court, what would traditionally be a summary conviction, and superior court, all in one day, sometimes maybe touching on one person or maybe two in the same family and there's an overlap. There's an obvious encompassment of information that the judge in normal circumstances wouldn't be privy to.

• 1030

Ms. Nora Sanders: No, although it's interesting that a judge who serves a certain region does tend to get to know certain individuals, certain names and families, as matters arise, and whether it's all on the same day or it's a case of encountering some of those same people over the course of time— Of course, there's good and bad in that. I know normally when we think of our system, independence of course is key, as is impartiality, but the question is whether impartiality always means knowing nothing about the circumstances. I think one of the things we struggle with in the north is that sometimes it's relevant to have some community involvement, for example, which does bring a little bit of a sense of knowledge of the circumstances.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think that's true in a lot of small communities where judges become familiar with some of the overall situations the people who are appearing before them are wrestling with.

I just have one very brief question, and I think Mr. Cadman will appreciate this one too.

Ms. Williams used, I think, a very poignant phrase to describe her people, and that was “silent receivers of justice”. I thought that was a very apt way of describing it. I'm wondering what steps are being made in this new system to improve availability or accessibility to victim services, which is something this committee's been looking at quite closely over the past year.

Ms. Rebecca Williams: I have been travelling to Nunavut regions meeting with community justice groups and their chairpersons, along with a federal justice person, Scott Clark. We've been talking to them about what they're doing now, although I worked in that capacity before. But in planning for Nunavut government for justice, we want to know what they've been doing, what their aspirations are, what they can do, and how they see their roles in the community, in jails, and in relation to the RCMP or other people involved in justice.

One big issue I put across to them is what we are doing with victims. Many times I've been told the criminal courts don't do anything with victims. If anything, we victimize them again in our criminal courts. At the community level, we may think we might victimize the victim by talking to them, asking them questions, which would be the same as criminal courts asking about, discussing, or arguing the credibility of a victim. That happens in criminal court and it happens in the community.

So it's an issue with us that victims are left out a lot of the time. If anything, they've been victimized again or blamed in a small community. I think criminal courts and Inuit communities need to realize that we need to help them. We have jails for offenders. We have probation officers and parole officers to help these offenders. But what do we have for victims? We don't have a lot.

I was talking about how we were silent for many years. Now that we can grieve these things, they will come, and it's a concern to us. There are small committees in each community that came from Pauktuutit for many years, and sometimes communities may use those for victim services, or victim counselling with support. It is a concern. I'm glad you raised it, because it's a concern in all of Canada, I think.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Rebecca.

Go ahead, Leena.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin: I just want to include another point. Maybe it's an indirect answer to your second last point, which was on bringing more aboriginal peoples into the system.

I think, naturally, one of the positive responses to the needs of Inuit in Nunavut in regards to justice issues is that bringing more aboriginal peoples into the system will make a big difference.

One of the issues we often overlook is the issue of language barrier. Many of our people are unilingual in Inuktitut, so that is a challenge on top of the fact that dealing with a foreign system is difficult on its own. Not being able to communicate comfortably and directly with your personal issues is very difficult.

• 1035

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Leena.

From the government side, we have Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Merci, monsieur le président.

I first would like to really thank you. I know we always thank the people who come to testify before us, but there is a special meaning to it today. I think your very serene determination and enthusiasm are very communicative, and I appreciate it very much.

Before I get to a question of substance, Mr. Chair, I would like to indulge in a little pleasure. I would like to ask a question about linguistics so as to understand one thing.

When you spoke, Ms. Williams, I noticed that when you referred to dates or numbers, you referred to them in English. For the rest, of course, you were using Inuktituk. Is there any reason for that?

Ms. Rebecca Williams: I said some of the things in English, but when I said “over 50”, I said it in Inuktituk. We use both.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see.

Ms. Rebecca Williams: When you say numbers in Inuktituk, you add them. So for “over 50”, I said “two 20s, plus 10, and more”.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So 1987 would be a problem.

Now here's the question of substance. Ms. Williams referred to the fact that a number of inmates, after finishing their term of sentencing, were reoffending. At the same time, I also heard you, Ms. Williams and Ms. Evic-Twerdin, use the word “healing” very often. So obviously there's a discrepancy between what you believe should happen and what you see in fact.

We know there are a number of programs designed to rehabilitate and to try to prevent reoffending. Overall, they work rather well. Could you explain why it is that you have so many people reoffending, and what steps could be taken to address this issue?

Ms. Rebecca Williams: I think if we had the answers, it wouldn't be happening, but I'll try anyway. We do have many people reoffending. A lot of the time, penitentiaries have four main programs that inmates need to take before they can apply for parole. Those mandated programs are very good. But government sort of forgot, I think, what the community programs should be, which is good after-care programs for probation and working with victims.

Inuit understanding right now is that going to jail somewhere is just running away from your problems. If the situation was not corrected at home, then when she or he comes back, they often go back and create the same problem. That's because we didn't do very good work in the family situation and in the relationships of this person who was in jail. So he comes back to the same thing.

I had an opportunity to go to Bowden Institution and Saskatchewan Penitentiary. Inmates down there told me and Nora—we were down there together—that while there are these programs, they're hard to understand because they're speaking a different language. They're doctors or sociologists or something. They're very different from the nature of the inmates.

The programs were good, but when they go home, they go back to the same thing. It's the same situation. People are still drinking and hurting each other. There's still family violence. So I think they go back to jail again a lot of the time.

In this report I was talking about, Jose Kusugak, who is president of Nunavut Tunngavik, indicated that we need to have a healing, that people need to be healed. The offender, the victim, and the family all need to go through some healing. I think this has resulted from you asking why we are like that. For many years, we have had social programs and other things that were imposed on us by other people. Sometimes those programs don't work, so we're saying today that we have the opportunity now. We're not going to be silent any more. We're going to do something in our communities.

• 1040

In terms of how to find these solutions, it's going to take time. A lot of people in our regions are not feeling good about themselves. For example, I felt I couldn't do anything unless I learned in English, unless I went to school. A lot of people didn't go to school, so some of these people are sort of in a state of thinking they can't do anything right. When I went to school, I had to eat differently, I was dressed differently, my language was being changed. Everything was changed by other people, not by my parents. What did that leave for me to feel good about? Nothing.

I think some of the people stayed on that level, but some of us are moving ahead. Hopefully, there'll be some programs. Our department is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Services. We're going to try to work more closely with the education department so that people in Nunavut see us working together to better the communities.

I also set up a small committee of nine people to look at corrections issues for Nunavut. We have over sixty-some guys, maybe eighty guys in Bowden Institution today. There are some in Yellowknife, and another sixty-some in Iqaluit. We have a committee set up to look at what's happening there, at what kind of programming we need to have, at what kind of training we need, at what kind of staff is required. Maybe we need a facility in Nunavut that could be staffed by people up there who know something about these families. This committee will come up with a report July 31, so we should have something in place or should have recommendations for our new minister on where the corrections are in Nunavut and on what we would like to do.

I went on for quite a long time, but I'm not sure I answered your question.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I could have heard you for twice as long. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No thanks, I'm fine, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. MacKay, you have a smaller time period.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a couple of logistical questions. When do you expect to have your third judge in place?

Ms. Nora Sanders: We're saying within a year.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Within a year.

Ms. Nora Sanders: There are two things. First of all, it takes a little time to get the support staff in place. What we're finding in setting up the department is that you can't hire a whole office full of people in one day. We're going to have some there before April 1. They'll become familiar with their duties, and we'll fill in the other positions over the months following that.

The other part of it is that there will be a transitional time after April 1 when judges from the Northwest Territories are still seized of matters in Nunavut, so there'll be a transitional time when there won't be quite as much of a demand on our own judicial resources. That will give the first two judges a chance to become familiar with their work and so on, but we would hope the third one is there within the first year. It is a federal appointment, of course, but our understanding is that the appointment would be made once we have the infrastructure in place and a suitable candidate is identified.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My next question is sort of along the same lines as the one Mr. Cadman asked. Built in with this review are the monitoring of this new system and an eventual evaluation. Is it your understanding that this may become a model for the other territories, and perhaps even some of the provinces in their remote areas?

• 1045

Ms. Nora Sanders: It's not for us to say. We think it's going to work for us. We think it will suit us. I expect others will view with interest what goes on. It's certainly an idea that has been explored elsewhere in Canada. As you know, there are some unified family court projects in existence. There were recommendations in the late 1980s in Ontario with the Zuber Commission to have a unified court here, but Ontario only went as far as unifying the county and Supreme Court levels. They didn't take it that extra step with the provincial court.

It's not a new idea. I guess I'll say it that way. As for what others do with it, it'll be for them to decide, but we'll certainly make available whatever information we can about how it's working and so on.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just a very specific question that you might be able to answer for me. I understand the collapsing of the system, whereby there will be the summary court and the Supreme Court; in fact, there will be all levels of court, civil and family. Am I to understand that means superior court judges will also be dealing with provincial statute offences? I know the intention is to have JPs deal with the lesser-involved, but will they also have the jurisdiction to deal with provincial statutes and summary conviction offences, areas where they would normally not tread?

Ms. Nora Sanders: Yes, but as you point out, as JPs get more training and so on, they may well do a good part of that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: They'll try to clear the docket.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Yes.

As you know, there is a range of things under provincial statutes, too. Some of those statutes have offences with very serious consequences, such as environmental issues and so on. Other things are very routine, and those are the kinds of things we would hope the JPs would feel comfortable handling in time.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you feel the support staff and the personnel will be in place by the start-up date?

Ms. Nora Sanders: Yes, we're doing our best, and I think it will happen.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you.

You've been talking about monitoring and evaluating the system. When the Justice officials were here, they talked about something to be called the Nunavut justice committee, which is going to have a role in ongoing administrative issues. Is that the same thing we're talking about, or is it something different?

Ms. Nora Sanders: There may be some confusion there. As we understand it, there will be a judicial appointments advisory committee from Nunavut. Of course, there are also what we call community justice committees in every community. Rebecca mentioned them in her comments.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And they're in place now.

Ms. Nora Sanders: We don't have a formal plan for a Nunavut justice committee, but we will have ongoing reviews and consultations. For example, the Nunavut Social Development Council, which falls under NTI, has a mandate to advise the government on all social programs, including the matters that fall within our area. We've talked with them and we expect to have ongoing meetings and relations with them, as we will with our colleagues from NTI.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So there isn't any sort of standing Nunavut justice committee that would be there to review administrative matters on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Nora Sanders: No.

Mr. Allan MacLure: It may be possible, though. I don't know anything firm on this at this point, but I would expect it would be a bench-bar committee that might contribute.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, along with the appointments committee you make reference to. You're right, I am confused.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Grose, then Ms. Bakopanos and Ms. Cohen.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is not a question; it's more of a statement to all of the witnesses. I was intrigued by your mention of recidivism, which is a fancy word for the guy who keeps going back to jail over and over. We have the same problem south of 60°, so maybe we're not speaking their language either. It could be that we have common ground that we could talk about. It's not a unique situation.

I think our justice system, after sentencing, is failing miserably for everyone in Canada. It's something we're going to have to look at. It's not a unique situation. I have some familiarity with the system. As far as I'm concerned, we are going to have to do something.

I was intrigued by the fact that you said we weren't speaking their language. Well, obviously we're not speaking the language of the people south of 60° either. So this is something we can look at.

• 1050

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Nora Sanders: Mr. Chair, I would like to offer an observation about that, because I think it's a very apt comment.

Mr. MacKay mentioned earlier certain things that are common in small communities everywhere. I'll just say that, in some ways, it's completely unique. Having practised law in Ontario and then having lived in the north for a number of years, there are many things that are completely unique. But I also agree that there are things that are very much common. My own perception is that our circumstances tend to accentuate the things that don't work anywhere, and for us they're even more obvious. Because of our size, though, we have opportunities to try to deal with them in other ways. I have often thought that many of the developments we have seen in aboriginal justice really will lead the way for the system generally. I think the kinds of things we're talking about today have that potential as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the witnesses for bringing their vision to us, because if you've never been there physically, it's really hard to even imagine some of the challenges they have to face every day.

One of my questions had to do with the justices of the peace, but I think you more or less answered it when Mr. MacKay asked his. I was wondering about the training that was taking place, and about the recruiting of more justices of the peace. At the same time, my second question is in terms of training lawyers. How many young people are interested in the profession? What types of motivation or funds or whatever are available in order to encourage them to in fact get the type of training they will need to become part of this unique system of justice that we're putting into place?

Ms. Nora Sanders: On the JP training, the matter of recruitment is a key one. I didn't mention it earlier, so I'm glad it was raised. Right now, before they're appointed, JPs are recommended by their communities. That already takes place, but it's very clear that people are more willing to do it when they have a sense of ongoing support. We see that this JP administrator will have a role in talking ahead of time to people who are considering it, perhaps by travelling to different communities and different regions and by talking with local officials about the kind of person needed, so that they have a sense of what that person's expected to do. As with everything in the justice system, many things aren't well understood. We're hoping that this kind of support will improve recruitment.

We are also looking at having two JPs or more sitting together when they may preside. You can understand that when you're in a very small community and people coming before you are known to you, if not related to you, passing judgment can sometimes be a very difficult thing. To be able to share that with somebody else may be a good measure. That's something that doesn't take legislative change, and it does happen at times. One of the things that was talked about at the justice conference that the Nunavut Social Development Council had in early September was this very thing of perhaps having JPs sit in twos or even threes, but even two would be a start.

On legal training, there's a lot of work to be done. We've talked about initiatives. I've certainly discussed with my colleagues in the Department of Education the notion that any time they're having a high school career day or something like that, we'd like to have somebody present or have one of the legal aid counsellors present, just somebody who would talk about those kinds of careers. There's one individual in Iqaluit today who's preparing for his call to the bar, so that will be a very big step. There's a need for more people to take that interest. Going out to school and spending time away from your own people, your own culture, is a huge commitment, though.

There has also been a fair bit of discussion over the years about having a Nunavut law school of some kind. We're not sure if or how that will materialize. Of course, funding is an issue for all these things, but there is an issue to try to do better and to try to find ways to support the people with those inclinations.

• 1055

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I would like to ask a corollary question to that. What are you doing in terms of having the law schools in Canada try to offer scholarships to young people who would be interested in the profession?

It's nice if the government would provide those funds, but there are scholarships available in law schools across this country. Maybe it would be a joint effort on the part of our government, provincial governments, and yourselves to try to encourage law schools, or even the bar associations, across this country to offer an incentive to young people.

You're going to need those lawyers. Eventually they become judges, too, if we look at the system in terms of where you're going.

Ms. Nora Sanders: It might be a good idea to explore. Many things lie ahead of us, and that's a good one we'll make note of.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: How large is the bar in Nunavut? How many lawyers are there?

Ms. Nora Sanders: I think I'm running out of fingers.

We're just at that point where I think we're beyond ten. That's partly because government is starting to staff— It's more than ten and less than twenty—I'll say that.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: So with that kind of population it's going to be hard to appoint judges from your own community, isn't it?

Ms. Nora Sanders: Yes.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: It's going to create a shortage of lawyers.

Ms. Nora Sanders: We could potentially end up with a mix of people from the north and the south.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: When we were there Judge Browne told us that— I have to say that this is when the predecessor committee was there. I guess Mr. Maloney and I are the only two here today who have met her in those circumstances. I speak for both of us in saying that we were very impressed with her and with her appreciation of the culture she's visiting and in which she's operating.

She told us that in some communities she sits with as many as four elders. When she raised concepts like sentencing circles and things like that, she was viewed as if she was from another planet. These cultural differences are quite extreme as you go across the north.

We have a tendency to think about the north as just one snowy place, but when you're up there you appreciate that there are three broad cultures and a myriad of smaller subcultures within them.

I won't ask you to give a critique of the judge; that wouldn't be appropriate. But has her approach been welcomed, and has she been able to involve the community in this sort of foreign system we've imposed?

Ms. Rebecca Williams: I think I was one of the first people who didn't like this, the elders sitting with a judge. Elders in the communities are not working under the Criminal Code. They should be coming from a community.

When I was a probation officer I saw this often. What it did was build a relationship between communities and the courts.

As far as giving solutions, what the communities can do is talk about what is available for possible sentencing. They can give broad information about what the communities are like, what services are out there, what could happen, how they could do counselling.

Over time I learned to think that maybe it was okay to have judges sitting with people in the community. I was trying very hard to divide them, because I didn't want my people to be working with a judge who sends people to jail. When they come back, they're not better.

What happened sometimes is that it broke the ice. Courts are very intimidating, they're scary. This judge built a very good bridge. But at the same time she's very careful about what she does in this court with the people in the community.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thanks.

I also wanted to say to all of you that the committee tried very hard to come to Iqaluit, but you don't have enough hotels or places for us to meet.

So I wanted you to know that we did try very hard, but that as individuals, we would all welcome an invitation to come when your new system is up and running, to visit maybe in April. If we had that invitation, we would work hard to come.

Those of us who've been there and spent some time there know— It's one thing to know in your heart that visiting an area is not— Visiting Iqaluit is not visiting Nunavut. We know that in theory, but when you've done it, once you've been there, you've been to some outposts and you've been to the town of Iqaluit itself, you just keep learning how much more you don't know about this new territory, which is very much a part of our country.

• 1100

So I would encourage all my colleagues here to accept any invitation that might come.

You should know that part of our office budgets allow us to travel anywhere in Canada we want. If we had the invitation, I'd crack the whip a little and encourage people to visit you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): I thank you, Ms. Cohen, for those invitations.

Rebecca, did you have another comment?

Ms. Rebecca Williams: I wanted to say that I've been talking to Roger from our office, and I was excited that you people were coming up. But everybody wanted to stay in the same place, so that was difficult. You're more than welcome to stay in our homes if you come up and you don't have a hotel room. There are lots of houses. In Inuit we have a saying: no house is going to burst if you put too many people in it. So there's lots of accommodation up there.

Ms. Nora Sanders: I might just say, too, that we'd be very honoured to have the committee come to Nunavut some time. If you think there are no hotel rooms this week, April 1 is also one of those difficult times. But sometime after that there might well be an occasion, and we would be happy to talk further about any of the initiatives going on.

It's appreciated that some of the members here have come north in the past. It does give a different appreciation to all of us.

I find that every time I travel to any of the communities in Nunavut, I learn things. I know, therefore, that it's going to be the same for you when you come north.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

The last round is to Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you. At the risk of getting into the constitutional jigsaw puzzle too much, I just wanted to ask something. As I understand it, there will be some complementary legislation required from the territorial level, because although the federal legislation would displace the current Northwest Territories legislation, there's still a vacuum there in some respects.

Can you indicate your understanding of when that legislation would come forward? We'll be operating with— Well, I suppose the old legislation could continue if it weren't compatible with this statute.

Ms. Nora Sanders: The legislation actually was introduced earlier this month in the Northwest Territories legislative assembly. As you know, under the Nunavut Act, the NWT legislative assembly does have the power to pass legislation uniquely for Nunavut at the request of the Interim Commissioner.

That was done and that legislation was developed through a similar consultation process with the parties we've mentioned for this bill. In fact it's in standing committee in Yellowknife on Thursday, and we hope it will be passed in December.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's great. The whole concept of creating a new form of governance for Nunavut is very exciting. I know there's been broad consultation everywhere on almost all aspects.

With respect to this legislation and the consultations that have taken place, I realize there's broad consensus. I don't want to detract from that, but in the recollection of any of the witnesses, was there a person or group who at some point said no, this won't work for me; it won't work for us and we object? Can you recall someone out there in the dark and the cold saying, please don't pass something like this because it will have a negative impact on me or us? Do you recall anything like that?

Ms. Nora Sanders: No. There was active discussion on certain points, how to deal with certain things. I think there was general consensus on how things ended up. Certainly for the general concept of having the single-level trial court there was nothing but support.

In fact, this came from people not even involved in the justice system. This is because of the news recently on the radio and so on about the bill being introduced in the House. We've had people commenting that, gee, this is something exciting going on; it sounds like a good measure. I can't think of a single person who has said they—

• 1105

Mr. Allan Maclure: Nor can I.

Ms. Leena Evic-Twerdin: During the conference that Rebecca was talking about, which took place in November 1997, the participants at the conference, as I remember, asked very strong questions. They were asking what the difference really is between the two systems, do we need a new system, and why is that new system being proposed—not a current system.

Once they were given the information on both systems, they came to the conclusion that, yes, the single-level trial court is appealing.

Mr. Derek Lee: No pun intended.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you. We very much appreciate the panel being with us today for our consideration of the Nunavut Court of Justice act. It's been very interesting and it was a unique presentation. I think we've looked at it with a little bit of trepidation. I appreciate your appearance because you've filled in a lot of gaps. I know, perhaps speaking for myself, I have a lot more confidence that not only will it work but it will flourish. You may be coming back to us some day because we may be considering this for other areas of this country.

Thank you very much for coming. We very much appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.