This is page numbers 1165 - 1196 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was liquor.

Topics

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. At this point in time I would like to recognize a few people in the public gallery: Mr. Tom Stewart from the Kitikmeot Board of Education; and a gentleman who almost single-handedly took the people of my area to put me in this seat here, Mr. Dennis Lyall, my friend.

--- Applause

And also for my friend from formal school, a fellow student from the Baffin area, Joe Ataguttaaluk.

---Applause

Thank you. To the standing committee report on the liquor law. To the report. Do we have any further comments from the Members? Yes, Mrs. Thompson, you have the floor. I think you want to recognize somebody.

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

Manitok Thompson Aivilik

I would like to recognize Fraser Hope from the Keewatin Divisional Board of Education.

--- Applause

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

Yes, Mrs. Thompson.

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

Manitok Thompson Aivilik

Mr. Chairman. Sorry. I would also like to recognize Sandy Kusugak from the Keewatin Divisional Board of Education.

--- Applause

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

Members, because it is the first time that the Member for Aivilik wanted to recognize public in the gallery, I gave her the opportunity, but it is not our custom to do so.

We are dealing with the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation regarding the liquor laws of the NWT legislative action paper. Do we have any further comments from the Members of committee of the whole? Member for Thebacha.

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee recommends that when drafting the now Liquor Act the government should give the maximum amount of legal allowable authority to inspectors and peace officers to allow them to effectively enforce the act;

And further, that minimum penalties for the illegal sale of liquor by bootleggers should be substantially increased in the new Liquor Act. Thank you.

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. For the benefit of Members of the committee of the whole and also for the benefit of the Member for Baffin South, we need the written motion translated into the appropriate language. We will take about five or 10 minutes for the translation. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Committee Motion 50-12(7): Territorial Plebiscite On Legal Drinking Age, Withdrawn
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

The committee will come back to order. We have a motion that has been translated and is being distributed. I would like to mover of the motion to read the motion for the record. Member for Thebacha.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee recommend that when it is drafting the new Liquor Act, the government should give the maximum amount of legal allowable authority to inspectors and peace officers to allow them to effectively enforce the act;

And further, that minimum penalties for the illegal sale of liquor by bootleggers should be substantially increased in the new Liquor Act.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Whitford.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1192

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the recommendations are good ones, but it leaves a lot of latitude that allows the government to make certain decisions to try to rectify what is perceived to be a problem now, and perhaps it is a problem. I do know a number of liquor inspectors who take their job seriously and they go about doing what they have to do, and the peace officers likewise. But I'm not sure whether it's the government's restrictions that are hindering peace officers. It may be the laws themselves that disallow certain things to go to court, search warrants to be required and all kinds of technical stuff like that. A peace officer can do so much, but once they've done their job, then this falls into the hands of the courts. Often it's not dealt with in the manner, I suspect, that the mover of the motion would like to see -- and I think a good number of the public would like to see as well. I think that's where some of the problem lies.

Likewise for the second portion of the motion concerning the substantial increases in fines or penalties for bootleggers. Bootlegging is looked at as a joke in many places. The public in those communities, the public in Yellowknife, the public in Rae, Wrigley, Simpson and Iqaluit know who the bootleggers are. I don't think it's entirely the responsibility of the police to enforce that and bring these people to justice; it's the public themselves.

I was quite surprised and happy to see that one community, not too long ago, reported who the bootleggers were. It took on a different character by doing that where the public themselves are the ones who are going to enforce this law; enforce it by not participating in the purchasing of illegal liquors, participating in terms of enforcing it by reporting who the bootleggers are and assisting the peace officers and the liquor inspectors to carry out their jobs. I think a lot of responsibility does fall on the police.

In terms of penalties, we give a fine to a bootlegger. I support the motion, it's just that the fines are so low it's a cost to doing business. The mover is correct that when you see a person going to the liquor store and going out with a couple of cases of mickeys, for example, you know that if they're intending to have a banquet or a party they would probably purchase the more economic containers -- the larger, the cheaper -- instead of these small things. You know that this is hip pocket stuff and it's going to be sold illegally on the street. I think it should be treated as a serious matter, rather than just giving them a small fine for this thing, and I support what is being said here.

Again, I say that the public are the ones who would be able to eradicate bootlegging. They would be the ones who would be able to eradicate any misuse of alcohol, even in licensed establishments, by reporting infractions or people who are abusing and putting into jeopardy a privilege that other people who don't abuse the system, enjoy.

I support the motion but I want to make those comments so the inspectors and the peace officers will know the public are behind them, so the courts will know the public is behind them, as well, when it comes to dealing with people who misuse alcohol, who violate the rules we set down, or who put the public in danger by selling illegal alcohol. I just wanted to make those comments. I'm supporting the motion but the public will react to these suggestions a little more strongly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1193

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. To the motion.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1193

An Hon. Member

Question.

Committee Motion 51-12(7): Providing Maximum Authority To Inspectors And Peace Officers In New Liquor Legislation, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1193

The Chair John Ningark

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

--- Carried

Mrs. Marie-Jewell, do you have further comments to make? Member for Thebacha.

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee recommends that the government should draft a new Liquor Act in a way that reinforces that liability of liquor licensees for damages arising from the irresponsible sale or supply of liquor;

And further, that this committee recommends that the government include provisions in the draft Liquor Act that would require licensees to carry a minimum level of liability insurance. Thank you.

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. The motion is being distributed to Members. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Patterson.

Dennis Patterson Iqaluit

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the intent of the motion, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask -and perhaps our legal advisor could assist us -- a question about damages resulting from irresponsible sale or supply of liquor. Isn't it true, Mr. Chairman, that licensees are already liable for their actions in selling or supplying liquor under the ... Sorry, I understand there may be a translation problem, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. I believe the translation is now being fixed. Mr. Patterson.

Dennis Patterson Iqaluit

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just repeat the question. I think the essence of it is, I agree with the intent of the motion, but I would like to ask -- perhaps through our legal advisor -- aren't licensees already liable, civilly, if they act irresponsibility in the way that they sell or supply liquor? If that's the case, then I would like to ask our legal advisor, would provisions in the Liquor Act restating that civil responsibility strengthen or possibly weaken the remedies that are already available, as I understand, under civil law? Thank you.

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. On the legal aspect of the motion, legal counsel, Ms. MacPherson.

Law Clerk Ms. Macpherson

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Presently, if a person sells or supplies alcohol and they are negligent in doing so, they can be held responsible for the damage that is caused, if that damage is caused by their irresponsibility. That is already in the common law, in the case law, that is developed and the courts have held people responsible for that damage.

It is possible that legislation could extend the liability of people who act in that manner. For example, one of the problems sometimes is proving that the irresponsible sale caused the damage. It is possible that legislation could impose what we would call an absolute liability and presume that there would be damages resulting from the illegal sale or supply of liquor. It is possible that legislation could extend it.

It we were to codify the existing law in our Liquor Act -without making further changes, without extending the law, a possible danger that the courts could limit remedies to what is contained in the act and say that the Legislature has ousted the common law. That is something that people drafting the legislation would have to be aware of. It would have to be drafted very carefully to make sure that it doesn't prevent the courts from taking advantage of new laws and new doctrines in law, as they may arise, so that the courts wouldn't be limited to awarding damages only in situations that fell clearly under the scope of the act. It is something that would have to be watched out for by the drafters. I hope that answers the Member's question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Ms. MacPherson. Mr. Patterson, has legal counsel answered your question? Mr. Patterson.

Dennis Patterson Iqaluit

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the legal counsel, as usual, has given wise advice and hopefully it will be of assistance, should this motion pass, to the drafters of the now bill in enacting provisions that will further the worthwhile objectives of the mover of the motion. I think that explanation is helpful and I'm glad that it's on the record. I'll support the motion in light of that. Thank you.

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. To the motion. Mr. Lewis.

Committee Motion 52-12(7): Reinforcement Of Liability Of Liquor Licensees Arising From The Irresponsible Sale/supply Of Liquor, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

June 6th, 1995

Page 1194

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

I don't want to be picky, Mr. Chairman -- it's late in the day to get on people's nerves -- but first all I believe that the word committee is singular. It's a singular noun and the verb should be "recommends" not "recommend," with an "s" after it. When we come to the body of that first clause, "in a way that reinforces that liability," 'that' doesn't mean anything. You don't know what it's talking about. I believe it should be "the" liability, not "that" liability. It just doesn't make sense. In English this sentence doesn't make sense; it's not a sentence. I would say that this motion, because it doesn't make sense, is out of order.

--- Laughter

I could move a motion that we change it so that we have "recommends," with an "s", twice, where those words appear and that we replace the word "that" with the word "the." Then it would make sense and it wouldn't be out of order.