I take from the executive summary I read from this report that the business of doing audits has some urgency related to it, so I would like to hear from the Minister when he thinks this audit plan will be in place and operationalized.
I understand the urgency, and the Member is not wrong. However, until we get an idea of what this office is going to look like and how it is going to be structured, and we are doing that work right now so that we can include it in the next round of business planning, it is a little awkward to say, "Go out and do the audit," when we do not have the resources or the design that will actually support the work getting done. It is necessary. I am committed to making it happen. We will be coming forward during the business-planning process for more discussions around the auditor's office. Like I said, there are a couple of things that we would still like to figure out, whether or not we go with a decentralized model or a more centralized model, recognizing that not all of the cases are in Yellowknife. This is important work. It will help us to have an audit mechanism that can be successful, regular, and efficient, so there is work that needs to be done. I have made that commitment to the Member already, and I will live up to it.
The report writer said this: "The budget for the OPG is just under $300,000 a year. Actual expenditures for the past four years have ranged from 8 to 40 per cent over budget. Projected expenditures for 2016-2017 are close to 50 per cent over budget."
So, given the extent of overspending in this office, I am unsure why the Minister feels he needs to make a business case to supplement funds. Can he explain why the budget has not been increased to cover the costs of these overruns before now?
The report and the Member's comments are contingent upon doing things the same way, which obviously does not work. We need to do the work to review the office. It will change in its operations, its design. We will find efficiencies, and, once that work is done, we will have a better sense of whether or not we are spending our money wisely and getting good value for money. We anticipate that there is going to be some changes. Those changes will help inform what our true costs need to be as opposed to what they would be. If we keep doing things poorly, we will keep getting poor results. We are looking at doing things better.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mr. Speaker, it is often said that social services is the poor cousin in this department, and I am sorry to say that the treatment of the Office of the Public Guardian reflects that. It is also true from a legislative point of view the Guardianship and Trustee Act is 20 years old. It is out of date with respect to what the best practice is in this field now in Canada. Can the Minister tell us what his plan is to update this legislation? Thank you.
I think our actions on this file since it has come to our attention show that we do take this seriously, that we want to make changes. It is not particularly fair to suggest that this office has been ignored. If it was being ignored, we would not be having this discussion today. We are making the changes that are necessary to make the improvements. As far as the legislative changes, let us finish the work around the operationalization, which may address the issues that are out there. We are not a hundred per cent sure that they will not. Let's do the work. If legislative changes are required, we will make those legislative changes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke about the challenges of medical travel, and I have some follow-up questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Yesterday, the Minister said that the department does not track flight cancellations, rescheduling, rerouting flights as part of the medical travel for people who are going out for appointments and that. Will the Minister direct his staff to start doing this? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At a territorial-global level, no, I will not. We have a lot of people doing a lot of work, and I feel like this would be something that would take up time. However, when issues are raised, as they have been in the Deh Cho, yes, absolutely, we will contact the provider to try to figure out what is happening. We want to make sure that we are providing quality services to our residents. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have relationships with airlines. We have standing offer agreements. They have scheduled flights. We book based on scheduled flights in good faith, expecting that the airlines will live up to their obligations. There are many things that would sort of interfere with that: weather, mechanical, flights, those types of things. When that happens, we work with our patients to rebook them as quickly as we can to get them the appointments they need.
I thank the Minister for the answer. I heard that yesterday. It is about patients. It is about their care. That is my concern, is that I understand we rebook, we reschedule, but the thing is that I have people who go out for appointments who miss. It could be a week, a month, it could be two months, three months down the road, and this is a huge concern for these people. They brought this concern to me, and I appreciate the Minister is going to look at it for the Nahendeh, but can the Minister tell us if he has contacted the Department of Infrastructure, who is responsible for providing this contract, to see if they can look into this concern, as well?
Once again, the Department of Health and Social Services' responsibility is to provide care to residents of the Northwest Territories. Medical travel is an incredibly important program, and we rely in good faith on airlines who have scheduled flights. We have to make choices about when to book people and how to move people into their appointments as quickly and appropriately as possible. If appointments are cancelled, we take immediate action to rebook and to arrange flights accordingly. If there is urgency, there will not be a three-month delay; we will find ways to make it happen as quickly as possible. If there is less urgency, we will work with the patient to make sure they get the service in a timely way. I hear the Member. There is no question that, you know, there have been some impacts on residents of the riding due to a number of things that the airline has experienced over the past year, but, frankly, I am not sure what to say. We do not control the airlines. We are not an airline provider. Can the Member tell me what he thinks we need to do?
I appreciate the Minister actually asking me a question. That is kind of a new role for me today, so I appreciate that. So I guess the thing is that I would actually reach out to the contractor to see how they can alleviate these concerns and not put our patients out and put them into disadvantage. Because I know in my riding, in Fort Simpson, the airline contracted who has the bulk of this, is changing their flights. It is a regular scheduled flight, but it seems that sometimes we have got to go from Yellowknife to Hay River to Fort Simpson. Sometimes we get the unique flight of going from Edmonton to Fort Simpson to Inuvik to Yellowknife. So I guess will the Minister reach out to the contractor to see what they can try to come up with to alleviate this situation?
We have already done that. I have already said that. We reached out to the airline based on the fact that the Member had brought this to our attention. We were told by the airline that it has been a very difficult winter. There have been a lot of weather issues. They have had a couple of mechanical issues. They need to make sure that their planes are flying safely. If there are changes in one community, it may affect their ability to get to the communities that are originally scheduled, so they change their structures accordingly. We have registered our concern. They are aware, but they have to run a business, and they have indicated to us that they have set scheduled flights, they try to maintain them, sometimes they have to change. When they do change, we work with other airlines if necessary, other providers, and we try our best to get our patients to their appointments as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess this is just going to go around and around in circles here, but, again, my constituents are not getting a fair treatment. We are seeing this, and it is consistent, so maybe the airlines are out on mechanical and they are having that problem. So, if this service continues, will the department look at alternate solutions to provide these services, i.e. local airlines or another airline company? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have a standing agreement with an airline to be the first airline that we go to in cases of medical travel. That airline has provided good services. We have a really good relationship with them where we get discounted rates and, if flights are cancelled at the last minute, we don't hit a financial penalty on that.
Recognizing that, we know that it doesn't always work, and we have the freedom to go to other airlines, but our priority is to go to the airline of our standing offer agreement. We do use other airlines from time to time if we see these cancellations occurring, because our priorities are to get the patients to their appointments as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled "Revised Ministerial Mandate Letters for 18th Legislative Assembly Executive Council, December 5, 2017." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled "Follow-up to Oral Question 82-18(3): Economic Opportunities Arising from Legalization of Cannabis." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like to table the following document, "Undermining subsistence: Barren-ground caribou in a 'tragedy of open access' by Brenda Parlee, John Sandlos, David C. Natcher, as published in Science Advances." Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on March 1, 2018, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, March 6, 2018l
AND FURTHER, that at any time prior to March 1, 2018, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice;
AND THEREUPON, the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act, be read for the second time. This bill enacts two new statutes relating to the legalization and regulation of cannabis, the Cannabis Products Act, and the Cannabis Smoking Control Act. The bill also amends the Motor Vehicles Act to provide for prohibitions and enforcement measures related to persons who operate motor vehicles while their ability to do so is impaired by alcohol or drugs or by a combination of both, and to ensure consistency with the proposed amendments, to the Criminal Code included in the Federal Bill, C-46, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code for Offenses Relating to Conveyances. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to see this legislation before us today. It's been a long time coming. Since the election of the federal government in 2015, it's been very clear that the agenda of this new national government has been to legalize cannabis. It's something that Members on this side of the House have raised a number of times, both on the floor and behind closed doors, that this was an important issue of public policy that needed to be taken with the utmost seriousness by this government. It took a long time to get there, Mr. Speaker. It took a very long time, and finally consultations were held. Just the other day on the floor of this House, we heard that there were concerns around these consultations. The government has said that the consultations were as good as they could be in the short time made available. I continue to hold the position that the shortness of time was a decision of this government. The consultations could have taken place farther, and now we have a bill before us that addresses many of the key issues that this legislation needs delivered, but it is also silent or unclear on a lot of areas that need to be addressed.
I want to talk briefly about the economics of cannabis in this country. In 2017, about 4.9 million Canadians aged 15 to 64 spent an estimated $5.7 billion on cannabis for medical and non-medical purposes, the equivalent to around $1,200 per cannabis consumer. The majority of household spending on cannabis, over 90 per cent was for non-medical purposes. By comparison, in 2016, household purchases of alcohol, beer, wine, and other spirits were $22.3 billion, and household purchases of tobacco were $16 billion.
Household spending on cannabis has increased since 1961, which is the recent subject of a study that tracked cannabis spending from 1961 to 2017. Spending on cannabis rose an average of 6 per cent per year while domestic product grew an average of over 7 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, these results or these early assessments speak to a growing industry that has developed while this product was prohibited, while it was illegal in this country. The results when you look at the share of consumption amongst Canadians is quite alarming, when you think of this being an illegal drug. Forty-two per cent of Canadians will consume cannabis in their lifetime.
Amongst young people, the results were quite alarming. Around 43 per cent of young men and young women are using cannabis. We know now that cannabis has significant effects on developing brains. This system of prohibition simply isn't working, and yet at the same time it continues to be a key economic issue for our economy. We're at an interesting place in between two public policy objectives; one, to provide enhanced public safety and community wellness, and another, to address the economic opportunities that are inherent to cannabis.
I've been to many of the consultations. I've spoken to many Northerners, my constituents, and it's very clear that this is a divisive issue. With the high rates of substance abuse in the Northwest Territories, many Northerners do not want to see another narcotic made into a recreational substance. That decision is not in the hands of this government, but our government has an obligation to respond to that in a holistic and comprehensive way.
This legislation brings us closer to that point. I want to commend the government for the hard work they've done producing a very lengthy document. Many of the areas are addressed, in my opinion, adequately. The age of consumption is set at 19. This is a key step in fighting the continued illegal markets where cannabis thrives and it supplies organized crime. If we raise the age limit too far, we're going to be in a situation where bootlegging will continue, or where the black market will thrive.
Again, to the economics. This is something I've heard from many, many people, obviously not too loudly. People are less vocal when it's an illegal product, but there's a sense of entrepreneurism that is emerging as more and more people get used to the idea of legal cannabis. It is a sense that we see reflected around the country. Cannabis stocks soared in the early days of the announcement that legalization was going to come about. Many people are seeing newfound economic opportunities and entrepreneurialism as they approach this issue. I think that's a good thing, and we need to be a government that supports that. We need to support economic diversification and more business opportunities for Northerners. This is, again, not a brand new substance rolling into the market that nobody's heard of. This is something that Canadians have been using openly for a very, very long time.
When this legislation does not clearly address that issue, it leaves me with concerns. It is currently formulated that the Minister of Finance will have an exception power to give one-off deals with retail stores as they arise. I think it sends a signal that, although this government may be open for business for cannabis retail, it is not coming anytime soon. I think, and I think many Northerners share my opinion, that we need to embrace that opportunity right away. We can't leave the economic opportunities solely in the hands of government. We need to expand those opportunities to entrepreneurs, to the private sector, and allow them the opportunity to open their own retail outlets and to become experts in this soon to be recreational product.
There is going to be a huge need for public education. My colleague the honourable Member from Yellowknife Centre spoke to that earlier today, but part of that public education is also how to safely use a recreational product. That is not the public health concerns that we have around young people smoking. This is about adults safely using a recreational product. The best people to provide that information are those in private retail, people who have an expertise with products. People who have a stake in that market, and we need to be able to empower them and work with them in that community. My fear is, if we do not contemplate it in the legislation on day 1, we will be in a situation where southern Canada develops rules, regulations, and business models that swallow the market whole, and the North will not be able to compete fairly. It won't be able to compete at all.
I know there is some hesitancy from people looking at the existing systems of regulation around liquor and tobacco, and how that works, and we should replicate that model, but those models are old, and we have already heard criticisms around our model for liquor regulation and enforcement. I don't understand why the approach and those models are being reviewed. Why is the approach to use those models instead of developing something from the ground up that is going to support the economic opportunities that cannabis represents? That is one of the areas this legislation needs to improve upon, Mr. Speaker.
The legislation that controls the public use of cannabis, the workplace, all those issues, I'm glad that there's a framework, but there are still some unanswered questions. We are not sure who will have the authority to actually do the investigations. We are not sure how those inspections will work. Who those inspectors will be? Those are details that need to be clarified, and perhaps they can be clarified in regulations, but it is a concern when you are looking at the legislation that there may be those unanswered questions at this stage. The way forward documents and talking guides that the government has produced have not answered those questions yet. That is something we need to understand because we need to understand how this is going to be regulated, how it is going to be enforced on the ground.
The most important thing: even though I just spent a great deal of time talking about economic opportunities, the public policy objective of this legislation and of the changes to the Criminal Code are to keep people safe. It is to keep cannabis products out of the hands of kids, to starve organized crime of a narcotic that they have been exploiting for generations, and to end a system of prohibition that simply doesn't work.
I will just comment that, even though those things will be happening in many communities, there is still the option in this legislation for communities that don't want cannabis to make that choice. I think it is important to be sensitive to those communities who want to make those choices, and to empower them to make those choices, and I support that that's something this legislation will create.
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, although I have deep reservations around portions of this legislation, it is a step in the right direction. It is a necessary step, and it's the accumulation of a great deal of work on the part of this government, so I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to its review by both Standing Committee of Social Development, and Standing Committee of Government Operations, and the coming consultations on the bill itself. I do support this bill, and I thank the Minister of Justice for bringing it forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I will keep my remarks very short. I would like to encourage the Minister to put together a comprehensive set of cost estimates for the implementation of this bill. That is something that this side of the House has yet to see. We don't know the cost of putting together this robust public communication that's been promised, additional enforcement, and so on, the predicted revenues. We don't even know what the predicted revenues are going to be as a result of this bill. For this side of the House and the public to truly understand the implications of the bill, I want to encourage our Cabinet colleagues to put together that information so that we can have an informed debate. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regards to the principle of the bill, I guess the first thing that comes to mind is: where are we going to sell this product? Right now, we are putting it into the liquor stores, but that gives the liquor stores a step up. Who is going to cover these costs to do the renovations? The liquor stores that I've talked to, they have concerns about that, which then has an impact on the businesses, as well. I am concerned that we haven't reached out to the businesses that have already done the work to get licensing to grow the product. We haven't talked to them, nor have we reached out to the people who have the right to sell medical marijuana right now, who have done the work and done the homework, and we haven't done that. My concern is in regard also to the black market. We have already put a price out of $10 per gram, but have we done a business case? Have we looked at what the actual costs are to make it? The black market, how are we going to stop the people from actually coming out and selling their product at a cheaper price? These are the concerns that I have heard, and I am looking forward to the consultation process that we are going to do. I would like to thank the Department of Justice for doing the work they did, but we need some work done on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is important to remember that the federal government only introduced the legislation changing the law last April. This omnibus bill is a very ambitious piece of legislation touching on several departments; Health, Justice, Infrastructure, and Finance, among others. There has been a large-scale public engagement, and I believe, with committee's help and input, we can craft a made-in-the-North response to this change in the law, so I look forward to hearing from standing committee. Thank you.
Masi. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
I now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 63-18(3), Main Estimates 2018-2019, continuing with the Department of Health and Social Services. Also, time permitted, committee would like to move to Committee Report 5-18(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on Bill 1: Western Canada Lottery Act, and also Bill 1: Western Canada Lottery Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
