Desperate times call for desperate measures.

That appears to be what’s behind Makivvik Corp.’s recent announcement that it’s considering how to potentially banish from Nunavik’s 14 communities the troublemakers involved in drug-trafficking or bootlegging alcohol.

The idea came up during the three-day meeting of all of Nunavik’s public organizations held in Montreal in mid-April. Holding that meeting itself — an annual opportunity to put all the region’s organizations under the same roof to brainstorm solutions — is positive and productive.

Makivvik’s lawyer Jean-François 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.

Makivvik president Pita Aatami underlined the seriousness of the drug problem: “People are dying because of illicit drugs.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Charter’s mobility rights give Canadians the ability to move freely within the country. So it’s hard to imagine how any policy implemented by Makivvik, Kativik Regional Government or the federal government could withstand a Charter challenge.

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.

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’t allow for banishment policies.

Arteau described options where employers — because they often control housing — 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.

It’s not surprising that Makivvik is looking for new ways to deal with serious or hardened criminals in Nunavik’s communities.

Across the North, there seems to be a shift taking place in the type of crime that is occurring.

In the same week Nunavik leaders were exploring the idea of banishments, the commanding officer of Nunavut’s RCMP said organized crime is driving the trafficking of drugs in the territory.

Overcoming the legal hurdles to banishing people will be a tall order. But as northern leaders look for innovative solutions that work for their communities, it’s important to acknowledge that made-in-the-North solutions might be appropriate to tackle uniquely northern social problems like combating the devastating effects of illicit drugs.