Qujannamiik. I just raise these issues because, it this motion passes, then we have make these amendments to the Plebiscite Act, and I am just curious as to when we would do that, because you know the term of this Assembly is up some time next week.

My other issue is the issue of costs of a plebiscite, and I guess the most recent territorial-wide plebiscite was the boundary issue, but I also found out that in areas in the territorial election there are acclamations -- and I believe there were three constituencies that had acclamations; in 1987 and six in 1991 -- so that would mean in those areas you would have to get the poll clerks and whole election teams set up just to do this certain plebiscite. So I am not sure what that would cost this government to do.

Also, in our current system, we know that our jails are full. I found out that currently there are 43 people in our jails that are between 18 and 21 which is about 14 per cent of the inmate population. I believe that 9 we raise the age again, we are inviting more potential candidates to fill our already full jails. So there is a real potential impact on our system, and it would be a real problem for policing because they now have an age group, the 19 to 21 age group, who are already or may be frequenting liquor establishments who are now going to be prohibited from doing that and there would be unmeasurable impacts on that age group. Police jail cells aren't set up to house a lot of these people. Our courts are already overworked and our correctional centres are already full.

In the legislative action paper, there were a lot of concepts introduced, and I know that the standing committee didn't address every one of them in the reports. I believe by not addressing them, there was some support for those concepts. But I would just like to mention a few of them and I believe that if the laws and then the regulations pertaining to these areas are drafted and then put in to place in an adequate manner, a lot of the concerns would be addressed.

The first one is, and I think we all support it, that we have to enable the communities to exercise control over liquor regulations, and however they do that is really up to the people in the communities.

The other one is a concept of the offences for persons younger than legal drinking age, and the discussion paper says that we should make it a more serious offence for persons younger than the legal drinking age to consume liquor. A wider range of penalties and other consequences could be developed and the new legislation could be framed in a manner that incorporates community justice alternatives whenever possible. I agree that things could be done in that area.

The one that the report did mention was developing a proof of eligibility system that allows sellers and law enforcement authorities to determine whether a person is entitled to possess or consume the alcohol.

The other area that would help determine whether we want the drinking age raised is the number of penalties that we set, and I believe that was addressed again in the report.

Another argument that is raised by many people in determining age is that currently people can vote at 18, and people are eligible to serve in our armed forces and as firefighters or other dangerous activities at 18 or 19; as such, we put them in situations like, currently, Canadians are in peace-keeping operations in Bosnia at 18 or 19 ... I don't know if there are any there, but it's possible.

Another argument is that most other provinces have a drinking age similar to what we have in the territories, so we can't treat our young people any differently and we should be consistent with what goes on in the rest of Canada and the world.

So with all these comments I have made and my own personal convictions, I am not convinced that by raising the age limit at this time we'll solve our problems, and I believe this motion is not addressing the root problem of alcohol abuse. Therefore, I cannot support this motion at this time.