Debates of August 20, 2007 (day 13)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of the presenters expressed a view that while they would like to see the government introduce better means to address illegal and illicit activities in their communities, evicting people from their homes may, in fact, cause more social problems in communities.  There is also a question about how effectively SCAN legislation would address the issue it is designed to address.

In Yellowknife, Ben McDonald stated that “It seems like the act is designed as good politics but I don’t think it’s necessarily designed as good social policy or as good social development policy…”

We heard repeatedly questions like: What happens to a person when they are evicted in a community without market housing?  Who do they stay with?  What are the consequences for families that rely on the person evicted under SCAN as the primary breadwinner?  To where do these families move?

Even in the larger communities, questions were raised about whether the SCAN legislation is the most cost effective or efficient tool to address the issues we are all concerned about.

Lydia Bardak of Yellowknife, representing the John Howard Society, pointed out “Every bootlegger and every drug dealer that you remove will be replaced by someone else. So if this is an attempt to try and reduce substance abuse, it is not going to cut it. Restrictions don’t work; prohibition doesn’t work. The reasons persons turn to illegal substances or substance abuse are very strong and very compelling. Not addressing those reasons is irresponsible.”

A common perspective is that there are severe housing shortage issues in all communities in the Northwest Territories, and Bill 7 would only compound this problem in the absence of a plan by government to address it in implementing the SCAN legislation.

Chief Leon Lafferty of Behchoko pointed out that if you want to clean up the communities, make sure that you do not hurt the people by making the social problems worse.

It should be made clear that the people do not object to holding the perpetrators under the SCAN legislation accountable.  What they are saying is that in small communities, once these people are evicted under SCAN, not all of them are going to move out of town, which means that most of them will become homeless and ineligible for public housing.  They will then rely on their families and friends to provide housing, and this would exacerbate overcrowding in situations where there are already housing shortages.

This was made abundantly clear in comments made by Veryl Gruben of Tuktoyaktuk in speaking of the impacts on a small community, who stated “If someone gets evicted immediately for something, some illegal activity, whether it be alcohol, drugs or gambling, they’re only going to go to someone else’s house and create more problems.”

Saeed Shesheghar, a social worker in Tuktoyaktuk, said, “I have a concern about what would happen to people thrown out of their homes.” He went on to say, “A lot of these people are going to end up at social services and trying to ask for help because they are homeless.”

As well, there are questions about whether more than a million dollars that would be allocated for this program could not be better used by employing more police drug dogs or more RCMP officers in communities. Addressing the lack of treatment programs and services for those affected by substance abuse is another issue that people feel should be weighed against the priority of investing in SCAN.

Saeed Shesheghar of Tuktoyaktuk was quite eloquent in stating, “People are suffering here in this community. Bootlegging and other gambling problems are actually bleeding the whole community. If we haven’t answered that question yet, trying to come up with an act like this is a band-aid solution.”

The committee appreciates that justice, health and social services and housing issues are separate and fall under different departmental mandates. 

However, our people do not understand why one part of the government would, in pursuing its mandate, create a whole set of new problems for other parts of the government that are working together to address the existing issues. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the continuation of the report over to the Member for Monfwi. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Many of the presenters were either concerned about or have themselves been subjected to elder abuse.  In small communities, they could not see how the SCAN legislation would help an elder being taken advantage of by a relative or being kept awake and harassed by neighbours partying and drinking all night, without there being repercussions for the elder who reported the activity.