The idea came up during the three-day meeting<\/a> of all of Nunavik\u2019s public organizations held in Montreal in mid-April. Holding that meeting itself \u2014 an annual opportunity to put all the region\u2019s organizations under the same roof to brainstorm solutions \u2014 is positive and productive.<\/p>\n Makivvik\u2019s lawyer Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Arteau gave a presentation about the idea of banishing drug-traffickers and bootleggers. Drug- and alcohol-related violence causes a lot of suffering among Nunavimmiut, he said.<\/p>\n Makivvik president Pita Aatami underlined the seriousness of the drug problem: \u201cPeople are dying because of illicit drugs.\u201d<\/p>\n The justice system works differently in the North from how it works in the south, especially in the cities. The impact of illicit drugs can arguably have a harder, more devastating impact in small, remote communities than in bigger cities in southern Canada.<\/p>\n And the under-resourced court system means the trials of people accused of drug-trafficking or bootlegging can drag on much longer than in the south.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the justice system currently puts a heavy emphasis on the importance of keeping Inuit and northerners close to home as part of their healing and rehabilitation. So banishing troublemakers from their communities might make things markedly worse for those individuals in the name of protecting communities from them.<\/p>\n It would be a drastic measure, and it would be fraught with legal complexities. For example, any official government policy to banish people from a community would appear to fly in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<\/p>\n The Charter\u2019s mobility rights give Canadians the ability to move freely within the country. So it\u2019s hard to imagine how any policy implemented by Makivvik, Kativik Regional Government or the federal government could withstand a Charter challenge.<\/p>\n Because the Charter only deals with the relationship between individuals and their governments, there might be room for employers or other private organizations to enact their own policies for removing troublemakers from a community.<\/p>\n Banishment is something some First Nations use in communities whose local rules are controlled by band councils. But the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement doesn\u2019t allow for banishment policies.<\/p>\n Arteau described options where employers \u2014 because they often control housing \u2014 could play a role in keeping troublemakers out of communities. Similarly, landholding corporations could use their clout to impose anti-drug and anti-alcohol policies on Inuit-owned lands.<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/260501.100.94.png\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/260424.100.92-1.png\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n