Kugluktuk peaceful and quiet during periods when booze is banned

If the community's mayor, Derek Power, has his way, Kugluktuk residents will revisit the idea of restricting alcohol in their community in a November vote.

The proposed vote to put the brakes on booze orders comes after a summer when three two-week bans on alcohol in Kugluktuk showed police and hamlet leaders how their community changes for the worse when beer, wine and spirits are readily available.

On Aug. 27, after the third booze ban ended, alcohol flowed once again into Kugluktuk. Two days later, a drunken couple got into an open brawl near the elementary school as children as young as five years old watched them fight.

"This is the example of night and day. If there's booze in town and the wrong people have it, you can visibly see it," said Sgt. Chris Brewsher of Kugluktuk's RCMP detachment.

Kugluktuk imposed the three bans as a way of lessening the workload on the six-member RCMP detachment, whose police station was undergoing renovations.

During the bans, violence took a nosedive, police say.

But, in the first three days after the last ban was lifted, police took seven people into custody, more than double the number taken into custody during the entire month of July when no alcohol was allowed into the community. Four of the seven were involved in alcohol-fueled incidents.

When the ban was lifted, police asked airline companies to stagger alcohol shipments to Kugluktuk, so the community wouldn't be overwhelmed with orders.

But alcohol remained available because bootleggers have brought in bottles, selling a 40-ounce bottle of spirits for up to $500.

Brewsher said alcohol seems to make existing problems with jealousy, family issues and depression more acute and break out into violence, which is reflected in the high number of criminal charges from Kugluktuk.

In 2006, Kugluktuk racked up 678 criminal charges – the highest number for any community in Nunavut other than Iqaluit.

With 1,302 residents, Kugluktuk has only 4.4 per cent of Nunavut's total population of 29,474, but 11 per cent of the criminal changes. This year, police expect the same kinds of numbers.

On June 26, the hamlet voted for its first two-week ban on alcohol in the community because the RCMP had to temporarily move out of their police station, which was undergoing renovations. A second ban was introduced shortly afterwards, to give time to clean up asbestos discovered in the detachment.

When that ban ended July 27, police immediately became busier, taking 36 people into custody. On Aug. 13, after listening to the police report, the hamlet council approved another two-week ban on alcohol.

Police told hamlet councillors that two young people had committed suicide while under the influence of alcohol during the two-week period without a ban. As well, police dealt with 12 Mental Health Act complaints, which involve a person at risk of harming themselves or others.

The police have now moved back into their station. Of its four cells, two are now in use, and the remaining two will be ready shortly.

Even so, police had hoped for an extension of the third two-week-long ban at the Aug. 27 council meeting, but the meeting lacked a quorum.

Under the Liquor Act, a hamlet may only call for three bans in a single year, so if the hamlet wants to impose another ban, it must make a special request to the Nunavut Liquor Commission.

As mayor, Power said he planned to recommend the hamlet use this option over Christmas, when a ban on liquor is usual, and move ahead with the plebiscite for November.

On Sept. 4, the council was expected to back Power's recommendation.

When hamlet's last plebiscite on setting limits for alcohol took place in November 2003, two in three voters said they didn't want to see any limits imposed.

According to the Liquor Act, three years must pass before another such vote is held. At least a 60 per cent share of the vote is needed to effect any change.

Power said this November's plebiscite will ask a single clear and simple question on whether people want limits placed on the amount of alcohol that can be brought into the community.

These limits would be similar to those suggested in the 2003 plebiscite.

The plebiscite asked two questions: whether people wanted to have an Alcohol Education Committee and a bylaw that would limit the amount of alcohol to either 96 cans of beer or eight litres of wine, for a total of 120 ounces of spirits.

Of the 255 who turned out to vote, 102 or 32.5 per cent voted to have an Alcohol Education Committee, but 138 or 57.58 per cent said they didn't want one.

There were 85 or 37.78 per cent of voters who wanted limits placed on the amount of booze, but 140 voters or 62.23 ­didn't want any.