Thank you.

--- SHORT RECESS

I move that the committee recommends that the Executive Council develop the form of a question to determine whether voters in the Northwest Territories want the legal drinking age increased to 21 years of age;

And further, that this question should be put to a plebiscite during the fall 1995 territorial election.

To the motion. Mr. Whitford.

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. To the motion. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make some comments on this motion. In 1970, the drinking age was dropped from 21 to 19. I wasn't there, but I'm sure a lot of the arguments that have been raised across the territories will be raised again on this issue. I don't think the arguments and issues have changed that much.

The issue of a territorial-wide plebiscite raises some questions and I would like to get some clarification on this issue. I understand that we have a Plebiscite Act. I'm not sure, if there's a question that goes to a territorial-wide plebiscite, whether or not the question has to be approved by this Assembly, and I would like some clarification on this. Who would approve a question for a territorial-wide plebiscite?

Thank you. Legal counsel, Ms. MacPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two options available to the Assembly. Under the Plebiscite Act, the Commissioner can approve the form of the question. The Commissioner would obviously be directed by this Assembly, could be directed by this Assembly. The second option that is available to the Assembly is to set forth the question in legislation.

When we had the boundary plebiscite several years ago approving the boundary, that question was put in a schedule to the Plebiscite Act so that there was no way of deviating from that question. For that question that was approved, the specific wording was approved by the Assembly. Basically, the Members could leave the form of the question up to the Commissioner, or they could put it in legislation.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Koe.

There will be amendments required to the Plebiscite Act, and one of them is the residency clause. Currently, I believe the residency clause in the act is three years. We're now requiring for our legal voting a one-year residency requirement.

The other issue is that we just passed amendments to the Elections Act allowing inmates to vote, so that raises the question about whether inmates would be allowed to vote on the issue of the legal drinking age. I would like to get some clarification on that.

Thank you. Legal counsel, Ms. MacPherson, on the legal aspect of the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the existing Plebiscite Act, only people who have resided in the Northwest Territories for a period of at least three years are eligible to vote. If Members wish to take advantage of the existing enumeration process, that section would have to be changed in order to take advantage of the enumeration that is presently ongoing.

The second area where questions would certainly arise is in the area of inmate voting. The Elections Act was recently amended to permit inmates serving sentences of less than two years to vote. There was no commensurate amendment to the Plebiscite Act. The existing Plebiscite Act prohibits all inmates, regardless of sentence, from voting. If Members wish to have a plebiscite, the Assembly may wish to consider whether they wish to amend the Plebiscite Act to allow inmates to vote.

The Elections Act was amended, as Members are aware, to allow inmates to vote as a result of the Charter challenges. The Charter does guarantee the fight to vote in an election. There is no similar guarantee of the right to vote in a plebiscite, so there may be policy issues that arise as to whether the right to vote should, in fact, be extended to inmates for plebiscites.

We don't have the same Charter constraints that governed the deliberations of the amendments under the Elections Act. But those are certainly two areas of amendments that would have to be looked at if Members wished a plebiscite to be held at the same time as an election, using the identical enumeration list. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Koe.

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.

Thank you. I would like to remind the Members to stick to the specific motion. Some of us are more skillful in talking to a motion than others but ... To the motion. I have Mr. Dent and I have the Member for Thebacha. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. To the motion. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I've listened fairly carefully to the comments that my honourable colleagues have been making with regard to this motion. Personally, I felt the debate to be very interesting and I'm pleased that other Members have spoken out on the issue. I want to indicate to the Members that I feel strongly that we're not going to get anywhere by pretending that the alcohol problem doesn't exist. And I do know, Mr. Chairman, that we all know how this Assembly developed a zero tolerance for violence principle. We all know that statistics reveal that in the majority of violent cases, the offender is under the influence of alcohol.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that until we make every attempt to address the underlying problem, such as alcohol abuse, it will be difficult to achieve zero tolerance for violence. In fact, we'll struggle for many years to come. However, Mr. Chairman, I feel this dialogue is very valuable. I also realize that it's a complex issue and that all Members may need to consult with their constituents, as many Members have commented.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be useful to provide Members with an opportunity to do just that. I suggest that all Members may want to consult with their constituents to find out whether they would like a plebiscite held on this issue when the territorial election is held this fall. From the start, Mr. Chairman, I have believed that the people of Fort Smith would favour the opportunity to have such a vote, but I realize that things may be different in other constituencies. And, Mr. Chairman, I respect that. I recognize the importance of our comments in assisting the government to develop a framework for liquor laws in the next Assembly. I believe, at the very least, I brought the awareness to this House.

The last time liquor laws were revised was, I believe, in excess of 20 years ago, if not 25. So Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to withdraw my motion in order to give other Members a chance to determine the views of their constituents. If there is support for the idea of a plebiscite, perhaps another Member can introduce a similar motion at a later time. Thank you.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. The motion is withdrawn.

--- Withdrawn

We're dealing with Committee Report 5-12(7) and I believe Mr. Tony Whitford has opening remarks on behalf of the Standing Committee on Legislation.

Standing Committee On Legislation Comments

Thank you. General comments. I have on my list Ms. Mike. Did you want to speak?

Mr. Chairman, I had wanted to speak to the motion that the Member for Thebacha has just finished withdrawing.

Thank you. We're dealing with the Standing Committee on Legislation Report on the Review of Rewriting the Liquor Laws of the Northwest Territories: A Legislative Action Paper. Do we have any general comments from the floor about the report? Member for Thebacha.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional comments with regard to the report. I want to comment that the legislative action paper makes the point that it is time to get tough with people who break the law by selling liquor in an irresponsible way. At the public meetings in Fort Smith last fall, my constituents felt strongly that the law should be strengthened to allow much better enforcement. I'm happy that, along with the views of the Standing Committee on Legislation, the Minister has announced a review of the liquor inspection program, about which I received a letter from him the other day.

Mr. Chairman, there are many problems that I would like to indicate to the Minister he should keep in mind while developing the liquor legislation. I think there is a lack of standards to guide how often inspections are being performed in liquor outlets. Inspectors don't have enough power and authority. And, the liquor licensing board hasn't been amending the liquor regulations to keep them effective.

I believe often inspections are conducted in a manipulative way. Sometimes, also, too many warnings are given because of the close relationships between inspectors and licensees. Even at times when inspectors catch someone, the liquor licensing board has a very complicated legal process which usually comes up with a small penalty.

Mr. Chairman, I don't feel there is enough training for inspectors and the public is not informed about their role. The legislative action paper suggests that there needs to be penalties for people who try to obstruct or hinder the inspectors in the process of completing an inspection. I think that needs to be addressed. Mr. Chairman, I know in the smaller communities it seems, many times, RCMP or others are somewhat hampered because of search and seizure restrictions which tie their hands and make it hard to address bootleggers. You got comments like we can't do this because of the Charter and we can't do that because of the Charter.

I certainly hope, in rewriting the new act, that the Department of Safety and Public Services and the Department of Justice will find ways to give the police as much authority and as many legislative tools as they can. It's time to make the argument that liquor abuse has reached a crisis point in the territories and we have to ensure the people who want to address them have the ability to address these types of crimes.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make further comments about the liquor licensing board. Some of my constituents feel that part of the enforcement problem has to do with the way -- as I stated earlier -- the board is constituted. In the board make-up, there should be guaranteed representation from all walks of life. It appears that the board is continually made up of business people. When I look at the current board, with all due respect, there is an alderman from Yellowknife and a mayor from another community who sit as board members. I believe the board's role should become more focused on education and less focused on day-to-day administrative matters that probably could be handled by the liquor board staff.

The board, once developed, should be established as a body which could hear appeals of administrative decisions, rather than the board having to make all the decisions itself. I feel the board's mandate and responsibility is supposed to be to make liquor regulations. I believe that it doesn't have the resources and lacks the ability to do this.

Regulations are now made by the board, but there is nothing stopping the regulations from being developed by the Minister and then sent to the board for confirmation. I think if the board doesn't object to these then they can probably go through the process for approval. I would strongly urge the Minister to look carefully at this area when the bill is being drafted.

Mr. Chairman, another area of the legislative action paper highlights one of the recommendations with regard to purchasing of liquor. I think that in many communities there are large purchases of liquor. Therefore, you know that many of these large purchases are probably going to be used for bootlegging purposes. There is no method, there is no process currently in place, that allows for any type of control in the system. There is no permit system. Someone could go in and order, I don't know how many cases of liquor all at once, and it's not questioned. If you're going to order 20 cases of vodka, for instance, it's questionable whether you're going to buy 20 cases of vodka for personal use, unless you're going to use it for a wedding. And if that's the case, it will be a very big wedding.

We've got to find some method to control that because I think it's harming the small communities. As I said, I would like to see in the Legislative Liquor Review, particularly, community control of liquor. The legislative action paper talks about community-based liquor control and it suggests, that rather than giving communities a restricted set of local options to chose from, there should basically be a broad set of options of different liquor control elements that can be implemented by community plebiscite, it the community so wishes. I think there is certainly broad support for this concept all across the territories.

When we look at many other reports that this committee puts forth it is always indicated -- and even in this particular report -- that community leaders stress that each community knows best what would meet the local needs of that community. Therefore, the legislation should allow each community to tailor a liquor control system to their needs. Issues such as standards for entertainment; a ban on strippers, for example; Sunday opening of bars; hours of liquor store operations; and, off-sales should all be decided on a community-by-community basis. I don't believe that it should be decided by the bureaucracy in Yellowknife or at the Liquor Licensing Board office in Hay River. I think we've got to give more control to the community.

I know that the concept of community empowerment is really the key to effective liquor control and for an effective Liquor Act. I would encourage the Department of Justice, along with their colleagues in Safety and Public Services, to be creative in coming up with a system that will place more authority in the hands of communities. Mr. Chairman, we all know that, no doubt, they probably have the skills and the ability to do that and they just have to commit to the concept. I would encourage them to be committed.

Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed with my comments, I still have quite a few more comments. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think some things, with all due respect, that were missed in the SCOL report were some of the ideas that were the principles for the new legislation on the overall framework, and I would like to ask them to turn to a number of items that are basically closely related to the committee's report. I believe that these matters were possibly overlooked with regard to a specific section when it was not dealt with.

The most important part of the liquor law review has been focused on the identification of the fundamental principles in which the new legislation should be based. I think it's really important to be clear on what these principles are because they will guide the overall development of the legislation. The standing committee report mentions, on page 2, on the overview, that a series of five principles have been identified but it doesn't list what those principles are. You have to go back to the actual liquor law legislation paper that came from the government to look at them as the report itself doesn't identify the principles. The principles, as I said, are outlined in the action paper.

The first principle suggested for the new act is that liquor should continue to be regarded as a regulated product. The second principle is that our legislation has to be tied with other community development health and social policy considerations and that it shouldn't be planned in isolation. The third principle is that liquor legislation should not be modeled after another province. I think that is critical to remember in developing your legislation. The fourth one is that liquor control systems should be effective and should reflect community priorities and empower local measures for liquor control. The fifth principle is the Liquor Act should be balanced, recognizing that many northerners have a problem with liquor use but that excessive and irresponsible abuse has been linked to many social problems. There are many northerners, too, have no problem with liquor use. Therefore, the Liquor Act should be balanced with respect to that.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that these are good principles on which to base a new liquor law. I think that the many public meetings, committee meeting hearings and other comments received from the public reinforce those fundamental concepts.

One other area that I feel has to be addressed, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to liability issues. Liability is an issue that is becoming more and more prevalent across the country. It basically has to do with the importance of empowering individuals with the legislative tools they need to make a difference when they see bar owners or others behaving in an irresponsible manner.

There are several suggestions along these lines. It is suggested that there could be a formal complaint system that individuals could use to initiate a formal disciplinary action against liquor licensees. We should have some type of protection -- I don't know if you want to call it "blowing the whistle," but some type of provision -- that would allow employees and licensed establishments to be safe from intimidation if they report their employer or other bar staff who are breaking the law.

A tiered licensing system could be developed that would -- something like the WCB system -- reward people who follow the law by giving them more opportunity to set their own prices or hours, rather than only penalizing those who are frequent offenders. I know the WCB system has an incentive type of system where if you can stay free from any type of injuries it helps your assessment. The same type of concept could be developed by the Liquor Licensing Board.

I think there should be mandatory server intervention training programs for all the staff who work in bars. If you're in the business of selling liquor you have to make sure that your staff is trained.

I believe that the new act should give people better tools for using the courts if they have been wronged by someone who sells liquor. It's not only becoming easier for individuals to take action through the civil courts and sue bar owners or people who throw parties and then are careless in how liquor is used. Recently the courts have been finding that people who sell liquor irresponsibly can be held accountable for their actions, and I certainly applaud these types of decisions and developments.

But our present act contains a provision that establishes the civil liability of people who supply liquor to others. But when you really look at the act itself, it appears to be so vague that it's probably very difficult to be of any use. So I certainly feel that our now act should be clear and precise with regard to addressing liability issues.

I also think, and I was really surprised that there is nothing in the regulations I shouldn't say there's nothing; it's vague in the regulations to ensure that these bars can have liability insurance. I think it you can reflect this in the new act that we could probably become the first jurisdiction in Canada to make it a requirement for bar operators to carry liability insurance, because not all bar operators in the Northwest Territories carry liability insurance. It's something, if someone could launch a civil suit, to ensure that the money would be there to compensate them for their loss. Some of the very violent actions come out of a bar, or you hear of bar brawls, and it there is no liability insurance then what does the individual have? I know this for a fact. I've seen people, even my constituents, who are still trying to get some type of compensation for getting hurt on a bar premises because the liability insurance has been so limited.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forth motions to assist in development so that these types of concepts are considered when the Liquor Act is developed. I think it's going to be important, as a Legislature, that we discuss these issues, because, as I have stated many times, liquor abuse is a serious issue that affects many northerners. I think the government loses more money because of liquor in paying for the social costs. When you look at the health budget, when you look at all the other amounts that we have to pay resulting from the abuse of alcohol, we probably lose more money than we make selling it.

But I know that it's here to stay, and I think our new act, if we can develop it in a form that we recognize these problems over the past years and make every attempt to address them, would only be helping northerners.

Mr. Chairman, public education, no doubt, is important, but I don't think that education is enough. I strongly believe, as a Member, that a legislative foundation has to be strong so that we can take action against those who want to break the law and use liquor in such an irresponsible manner.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do have a few motions which I would like to present, but I would like to wish the Minister well and his department, along with the Department of Justice, in developing the Liquor Act which will be brought to the next Assembly.