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.