I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 7-18(3), Report on the Review of Bill 6: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I am sure most Members have a copy of the report, which was read into the House yesterday. The way that these are dealt with, just for those people who are watching at home, is that there are recommendations in the report that are moved as motions, and there is discussion surrounding those.
The report is Committee Report 7-18(3), Report on the Review of Bill 6: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act. I will turn to the chair of the standing committee which authored the report for opening comments. Since this was a joint committee, there are two chairs. I believe both will be making comments. First, I will go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to provide opening comments.
Bill 6 is the product of the Government of the Northwest Territories' efforts to develop a legal cannabis regulatory system with the coming legalization of the substance through action taken by the Government of Canada. One thing that was very clear from the onset is that there was some hesitation, and not just from the executive council, but also from the honourable Members on this side of the House, towards how this initiative would roll out and how best to craft a legal system for cannabis in the Northwest Territories.
Given the significance of this issue and that it represents a fundamental shift in how we have dealt with cannabis in our society, not just here, but in every province and territory in Canada, the standing committees decided to work together and adopted a formal motion to adopt this unique process where we could combine two committees together. We actually had representation from 10 out of the 11 Regular Members and were able to work together and provide the expertise that we all have, based on the uniqueness of our ridings and our own expertise as Members of this House.
The committees then undertook to do the most extensive consultations that we have undertaken to date in this Assembly, and to do that effectively, we split into two groups. One group went to the northern regions of the territory, Sahtu and the Beaufort Delta, and the other went to the southern territory.
I was chair of the group that went to the north. My honourable friend from Nahendeh was the chair on the southern group, and I will allow him to speak to his experiences there, but one thing that we found in the north was that cannabis is not a foreign substance. It is very much alive and well in every community.
Whilst we were in Ulukhaktok, which is one of our most far-flung and isolated communities, one young person said that he believed that 80 per cent of the community was actively consuming cannabis, which is a shocking statistic. That just goes to the significance of what we are trying to accomplish here through this legislation, and that is to address a system that doesn't appear to be working, and that is the system of prohibition.
Well, we heard the concerns that "should government really be getting in the business of legalizing a drug, a narcotic, for consumption in our communities when we have such dire problems with addictions that we are all very much aware of?" I think the committee took those concerns to heart, but ultimately, if we are thinking whether what we have been doing, which is prohibition, has been effective, we know from our first-hand consultations that it is not effective, that cannabis is getting into our communities, and it is being widely abused by young people and by adults. It doesn't matter the size of the community or the remoteness of the community. This is a substance that is very much part of our communities, and government now has an opportunity to take a different approach to dealing with it.
That being said, there is a wide degree of variation in the communities we spoke to in how they wanted cannabis to be managed in their communities. It ran the full gamut from "let's open a cannabis store and have the revenues come to our local government" to "let's ban it altogether because we don't want it here."
It was particularly rewarding to speak to young people. In some of the communities, the young people didn't say very much, but they did attend, and they would speak privately with committee members. Hearing their expertise on the subject, again, just shows how real it is for our communities. Young people in particular understand this drug and have a great deal of experience with it, which is exactly why we need to address it with a legal framework that seeks to curb the abuse of the substance by young people, as there is significant evidence to show that the health effects can be concerning for those under the age of 25.
All in all, I believe that the committees did their due diligence and not only researched the issues extensively, but combined that research with their own personal expertise and extensive public consultations in 16 of our communities and six of our schools. That leads me to believe that the improvements that the committee has proposed to the bill that are contained within this report come from a place of good credibility, and they are not kind of offside opinions that Members are bringing forward that are not representative of the people we serve. They are very much near and dear to the hearts and minds of Northerners and to communities across our great territory.
Now, this report contains several recommendations that address the policy issues. As much as people wanted the legislation to reflect the unique needs of their community, we found, time and time again, more of the issues that came up were around resourcing a legal cannabis regime. Who is going to enforce it?
We were in Tuktoyaktuk, which is one of the communities we visited. The community told us, "Well, we haven't had a bylaw officer in a decade or more. How are we going to enforce any bylaws we put in place or any restrictions we put in place at the community level?"
We heard concerns around public smoking. Who do we turn to? Are environmental health officers, which is something the government has proposed, really enough to manage the smoking prohibitions?
For the Motor Vehicle Act amendments that have zero tolerance for impaired driving, who is going to enforce those? What we understood at the time of our consultations was that the RCMP would be integral to that effort, and drug recognition experts would be required to ascertain impairment, but there are only two of those currently located in G division, which is the RCMP regiment that polices the Northwest Territories.
These were the kinds of concerns around spending, and also, any revenues that are raised by government vis-a-vis the sale and taxation of cannabis, where do those revenues go? That was a question we were asked often, and although we didn't have the answer then, the suggestion that we received is that it should go back to the communities. It should go back to public health. It should go to public health research, and that, too, was an opinion that was widely shared across the Northwest Territories.
The substance of what we are debating today is largely those policy issues that were outside of the legislation, but, nonetheless, of crucial importance to Northerners, and I look forward to having the debate on the floor in these Committee of the Whole proceedings. I am sure my honourable friends on both sides of the House will have plenty to say, and I look forward to the successful adoption of our recommendations because, again, they come from a place of sincerity and a place of good evidence and solid engagement with the people whom we serve. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. More general comments than opening comments. Mr. Thompson, do you have further opening comments?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as my honourable colleague from Kam Lake identified, I was the chair who got the opportunity to travel with Members from Deh Cho, Yellowknife North, Hay River North, and Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. We hit nine communities, three schools. Of those nine communities, six of them were part of the original discussion that the government did the consultation process through.
We also, like I said, hit three schools; Deninu, Diamond Jenness, and St. Pats. It was very interesting, and listening to the youth, I guess the biggest thing is we were talking about a difference, you know, raising the age to 25, and the youth were very clear in telling us that no matter what age you're going to do it, if they're going to want it, they're going to find it. So we listened to that and we took it very clear that's what they're telling us, they're going to have access to it.
One big challenge that we heard, and this here was prevalent, I guess, in all the communities is: here goes the government, again, giving us an challenge, and issue, i.e. cannabis, and no resources to do it. I'm not saying the territorial government; this is the federal government that's handed this down to us, and we heard that very clear. You know, you're giving us an issue with no resources to it.
The honourable Member from Kam Lake identified a number of those things, there. I'm not going to expand on those, except that this report reflects the people of the Northwest Territories' concerns. There were 16 communities, and this is their voice, this is what people said to us. There were written submissions to us.
The committees north and south did a really good job of consulting, listening to people, educating people, even though we weren't trying to; it wasn't our responsibility, but we ended up educating people on the bill, and as I said, with a little bit of humour, I learned more about cannabis than I ever thought. CBD and THC were letters of the alphabet to me at the very beginning, but when it was all said and done, I understood that it was related to cannabis.
I would like to thank the people who came out to our meetings. We had huge turnouts in all the communities. We had very traditional communities, like Sambaa K'e, Lutselk'e, and Gameti, which are very isolated. As well, we went to Fort Liard, which really has an impact because of their closeness to BC, so I would like to thank the committee, and, again, everybody's commitment to working here. At this point in time I will turn the floor back to you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you to the chairs for their opening comments. I will now open the floor to general comments, just reminding Members that there are eight recommendations that we will be speaking to in detail. First, I have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do want to start with some general remarks. It was a real privilege to travel to seven communities outside Yellowknife as part of this joint effort. I went to Ulukhaktok; that's the first time that I've had a chance to go to that community. We were made welcome in all the communities, and I want to certainly thank everyone for their assistance with the travel and logistics, and especially those who provided their input during the process.
I'm not going to speak at length about what's in the report, but I do want to note that this does represent a fundamental change for many of our communities. This was a decision that was made by the federal government that we really didn't have a lot of input into. This was not about promoting legalization, or even legalization; that decision has already been made. This was about reviewing the bill that Cabinet had prepared.
I've been on the public record saying that we're not going to get it right. It's the first time we've tried this; we're not going to get it right. So that's why I think one of the most important provisions in the changes that the committee put forward was to require a mandatory review of the bill and its implementation into the next Assembly. That's going to be a very important review when it takes place.
We had to grapple with some very difficult issues. There's a divided opinion out there, and I do support the work of the committee, except for three important matters that I want to speak about briefly. I don't think it was a good idea to get rid of the advisory committee provision in the bill. I think that that committee could serve some legitimate purposes and I would have preferred that the committee itself would have been reconfigured, and membership would have been specified, and so on. So I didn't really support that, but I understand the rationale for the committee recommendation and the changes that were made to the bill.
Most importantly, though, I believe that the consumption age for cannabis should be 21 years of age. We heard from people in communities wanting the age to be 21 and/or higher. We heard from the medical community evidence that use of cannabis by youth can affect brain development. We had some interesting discussions and debates internally about this. I do note for the record that there are eight states in the US that have legalized cannabis; their consumption age is all set at 21, and the evidence that's been provided to me by medical professionals and their associations is that, in the US, certainly where there's a minimum age of 21 for purchase of tobacco, it has reduced adult smoking, smoking-related deaths, and has reduced youth smoking as well. That's with regard to tobacco, and I believe that the same trends would occur with cannabis use if we had a higher age limit. So I support a higher age limit. That's not what the committee recommended, but that's where I'm coming from, and I'll be bringing forward a motion that might help to deal with that issue in our proceedings tomorrow.
The other matter that I wish the committee had dealt with a little more clearly was the issue of plebiscites. It's my view that, where a cannabis store has been operating in a community and issues or concerns arise, that a community should still have the ability to influence the use of cannabis in their own community. I have prepared, and I'll bring it forward tomorrow, a motion to allow communities to enter into a plebiscite process for a restricted quantity system, even if there is an operating store with some other conditions that I'll go through tomorrow when we discuss that.
I do want to go on record as supporting the other recommendations made by the committee, and I'll be speaking to each of them as they come forward. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their very hard work in doing this. We did this under incredible pressure and timelines, and I think it's a good piece of work, and I look forward to the discussion and debate that's going to take place over the next couple of days. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I, too, would like to share my thoughts on this report that's been tabled in the House, the Cannabis Legalization Regulation and Implementation Act, or Bill 6, which is the effort of this government to legalize marijuana or cannabis. I think we all understood that the draft legislation that we were given was the result of the federal initiative to legalize marijuana at the national level.
Going forward, the understanding that we had, for myself, was that the federal government had initiated this whole process, and we're basically following suit as the territorial government for the Northwest Territories. So, in that exercise, our task was to review the draft legislation, or Bill 6, and consult with the public, which meant that we travelled extensively. I travelled with my colleagues who travelled to the southern communities, and was chaired by my colleague Mr. Shane Thompson. The communities that we travelled into were a majority Indigenous people. Of course, we are challenged with the high rates of social issues, as well, whether it be crime rates or alcohol-related charges or offences, and, of course, we had a mixture of modern and traditional values that continue throughout our communities in the NWT.
I serve four communities, and those four communities are mostly situated on the highway system. We have access to one liquor store. One of my communities that I serve has a prohibition in place, which means that there is no alcohol allowed in the community. The leaders in that community explained why, why they put a place of prohibition in their community. They spoke very clearly and passionately because they care for their people. The young people who were in the audience, and the young people were saying that, well, this is 2018, and that the use of cannabis and marijuana is widely accepted. It is a matter of time that it is going to come into our communities.
The reality is that we already have cannabis and marijuana. It is used in our communities already. The stage was set for us to go into those communities, consult with people, hear people, and, in some instances, it was very passionate. In some instances, we didn't have the interest of people coming out to our meetings. As a result of that, we have this report that we tabled in the House, those recommendations. Key recommendations that are in response to the draft legislation before us, and those key recommendations basically talk about improvements, how this committee feels that we have reflected upon the opinions that we have heard, and the concerns that we have heard from people.
I look forward to those discussions and debate that will likely happen within the House in the next couple of days. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Anyone further for opening comments? Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like many of the Members, it was great to visit the communities and hear the communities' concerns on the bill. For many of the communities that we visited, the residents, this is the first time they heard that legalization was going to be pushed forward for July 1st, was the date we are given, possibly as early as June 21st, but the date we were given was July 1st.
Many residents were asking us, why are you forcing this upon us, like it was committee that was bringing this forward, and we had to make it quite clear that this is a direction that was given to the Department of Justice from the federal government, and the federal government should have taken some onus on this as well. Gone out to the communities, done some sort of public consultation. I know it was an election promise, but this is a huge step to undertake and then just to pass it on to the provinces and territories to see it through, and without adequate resources, as mentioned by my colleagues here.
There are a lot of unanswered questions that, most likely, we are going to be the ones who are going to have to pay for things. Some of the things that were asked for were public consultation, like public awareness. Going into the communities, speaking to the youth, even going into the schools and speaking. What we heard was, what people want to see is more education for youth, whether it is taught in the schools or having someone hired like a youth coordinator to go around and educate young people on the effects of marijuana to their health.
As mentioned, marijuana could affect the brain up to the age of 25, and many of our residents felt that that should be the age where it becomes legal, is 25. Then again, on the other side, we will have the black market targeting that age group because that's pretty much the only way they are going to be able to make money, and there are also concerns out there already that people can mail order, whether it's shard or other drugs like this in the mail. It is happening today. That's what people want to see in our communities, more awareness; but then again, there is also a cost added to that. The federal government needs to ensure that they work with our government to make sure that we have adequate resources to fund this.
Some of the other things that we've heard was, because it was so new to the communities at the time, the communities that we visited, they were sort of leery of having a place in the community where they could purchase marijuana, whether it was some thought possibly in the Northern or the Co-op, or somebody might start up in the community. A good example is one of the communities that we visited which was actually in my riding, the community leader brought this concern forward. Since then, they have changed their mind after speaking with their council. With other drugs that are finding their way into the community, they feel that it actually might be safer to have a place in the community now.
The more the communities learn about this, maybe a little more willingness to have those changes in the communities. That's one thing that I mentioned, was, these are the early stages. We have one more month here before this is going to be legal, and over time, I'm sure we are going to see a lot of changes to this. Like most legislation, which is very hard to make changes to them, I'm hoping that this is not one of those cases, that it's a little easier to make changes to the legislation, because it's so early here. Those are just some of the concerns that we heard.
Some people are very open to it. We had some people in our meetings who wanted to start up their own business, and seeing that opportunity. In our briefings, what our Minister wanted to see, from what I took away from it, anyway, was it is better to wait to see actually what kind of revenue is going to be generated out of this. I could see that we don't want to see our small businesses set up to fail. We want to make sure it is adequate to provide this service.
I have mixed feelings myself about this, but like I mentioned, it's forced upon us here, so we are just here to deal with it. We had a lot of good conversations in the communities. We actually went until about nine o'clock in some cases here, a good four to five hours. A lot of questions, we were forced to answer as best as we could without making any commitments. All we could commit to was bringing these recommendations forward, and I look forward to seeing how everything works out here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Next, Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I won't reiterate what my colleagues have said. I know both committees have done a lot of good, hard work in the southern part of the territory as well as the northern part. I was able to travel to the northern part.
Being from a small community, growing up, you definitely see the effects of alcohol as they become more prevalent in those communities and more accessible. With marijuana, I believe that this younger generation that lives in the smaller communities and all over, I guess, across the territory, are pretty much adapted to it, and I think education on behalf of elders and youth is important.
Giving Indigenous groups time and working with Indigenous groups in the territory is very key. Some of my colleagues mentioned research. Indigenous groups in specific regions can get very accurate results working with the health centres and with the Indigenous governments that work in the region to get better results and, as well, to make better discussions down the road. As well, there are economic opportunities for Indigenous groups. I hope that the federal government and the territorial government will actually work with Indigenous groups to sell and to ensure that is brought out as best as possible in our region specific to where we live.
Other than that, I don't have much to add to what my colleagues have said, more or less. As for age, I think 19 is an appropriate age in the territory. Some may agree; some may disagree; but this is what we have going on with alcohol. The black market, as some colleagues mentioned, is going to thrive, but some other things like that may fall through the cracks that we need to pay attention to.
With our enforcements, I know that, in smaller communities, the bylaws are ill-equipped to work with this, and I think we need to rely on the police force more and more. I think that's something we need to educate our youth and our hamlets and our community governments on.
As well, work with other governments. Mr. Chair, there are a lot of other governments that work in the territory, Indigenous governments that we need to take into account, as well, and look at the capacity there and help build that as well into the communities. That's all I have to say right now, Mr. Chair. Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, I have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I travelled with the southern group. I guess the main thing that I just want to touch on a bit would be the education or research aspect of cannabis.
We went to three schools. We talked to high school students in three different schools, as you know, Mr. Chair, and it appeared as though the students themselves were fairly up to speed on cannabis. It is very easy for students to do research, not like when we were in high school. We had to go through a lot of books in order to educate ourselves. Now students see a lot of things on the Internet, and it is easier for them to go to a link to learn about things like cannabis.
There still is a lot of education to be had and a lot of education that will come as a result of legalization because they will be able to do research. It is a lot easier to research a legal product than it is to try to accumulate research on illegal products. I think that is an important aspect of it.
I think that cannabis, marijuana, or whatever we wish to call it, is definitely in the communities. I am not sure that the legalization of cannabis will increase the usage. I am not talking about individual uses; I am talking about the number of people who choose to smoke cannabis. I am not sure it will increase. I guess we will wait and see what happens, but it appears as though the one thing that the students wanted was some education.
Now there is an opportunity for government or other organizations to research and study the effects of the usage of cannabis, and the different levels of usage, also. If there is chronic usage of anything, it's not good for you. Even with alcohol, some people have no issue with alcohol. Some people can go home and have a drink almost every day, or every day, and they're not affected by it, because that's what it is, a drink, and some people can't stop at one.
If marijuana is a product where individuals, I'm not necessarily talking about the population as a whole, but individuals, are unable to stop at one point, then they are going to be spending all of their money on that, and it could adversely affect the family unit, no question about it.
The other thing that we found that was interesting is the economy of it. The economy with the grow operations of it, and even the retail of marijuana. People don't have a really good sense of it, because, so far, all of the people making the money are making money illegally, so they're not reporting it.
At some point, when the reporting becomes mandatory that, in order to sell marijuana, you're going to have to get a licence, and once you sell marijuana, you're going to be taxed on it, by the amount of taxes paid out, it will indicate how much marijuana would work itself into the economy. I am not 100 per cent sure, but I know that there are countries that were in deep economic trouble, and then recognized that it appeared as though they should be in worse condition than they actually were, and the reason was because of the illegal trade of cannabis or marijuana or products from that, whether it be hash oil, butter, whatever you make out it, food that has cannabis in it, but that's kind of like an economy. It is capable of driving an economy.
In the NWT, we're not a huge population, but we don't really know how much it plays into the economy. We know that there is money in there, and there is money changing hands. We know that for sure. I think everybody knows that, but how much would be something that we are going to know. Probably a year after cannabis becomes legal, we are going to know how much it plays into the economy. I think, at that point, individuals would have more research and more information about exactly what the impacts would be, positive impacts on themselves as businesspeople, if they were to get into the retail or the growing of cannabis.
Also, on a personal note, just from my own history in the Northwest Territories, what I have seen was that marijuana was a pretty good product when you compare it with other types of products that are out there, and I am talking about alcohol. In my hometown, it was a pretty rough place when I was a young man growing up in Fort Resolution, and there was a lot of alcohol. There were a lot of issues. There were a lot of serious issues. There were a lot of deaths as a result of alcohol, and a lot of those people replaced the usage of alcohol with smoking pot. I would rather be hanging around a bunch of pot smokers than a bunch of drinkers any day. It is a lot safer. That is what I think people have seen in the community.
A lot of individuals are talking about the fear of mixing the two, and things like that. That doesn't really happen. You have a drinker. He's a drinker, and he's going to party. They are going to go to the bar. They are going to drink. They are going to drink at home, do whatever. It does become an unsafe situation. They do create unsafe situations. The North Slave Correctional is filled with people who have committed a crime while consuming alcohol or as a result of having consumed too much alcohol. The same with down in Hay River with the South Slave Correctional Centre.
Sometimes, when you really think about it, and if it displaces alcohol, then I think it could be a good substitute if people choose to pick up the pipe or whatever as opposed to drinking alcohol. Some people just can't handle alcohol, but most of the people who have been in trouble and things because of alcohol have smoked marijuana and are doing a lot better.
I think, when it becomes a legal product, this fear about how marijuana is going to be adding to the problem of alcohol I don't think is there, but you never know. We will find out in a year. My guess is that, if it displaces the amount of alcohol, maybe the alcohol sales will go down. Through the revolving fund, we will see that we are not recovering as much money in the revolving fund from alcohol as we would be from marijuana. Wait and see, I guess. I think that is all I have to say. I think I have said enough, actually, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. We will take a brief recess and reconvene in 15 minutes.
---SHORT RECESS
I now call Committee of the Whole back to order. We were hearing general comments on Committee Report 7-18(3), and we will continue with Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank both committees for taking the time to go out on the road and listen to the concerns of leaders, youth, students, elders, and the general public on our cannabis tour. I was involved in the northern group, and it could be said that this society is being modernized to what is here already. As we heard from our previous colleagues' presentations, cannabis really exists in all 33 communities, and, because it's a federally imposed legislation, we are trying to craft this legislation to design the society and the cultures and the aspirations of the people we serve.
Right from the start, we were limited through lack of resources. The evidence of lack of resources really gave us the ability to only go to 16 communities of 33, so, having said that, it only shows that there were limitations right off the start. I think we can all agree that we are trying to serve the best interests of what is best for our communities and within the community, whether it's the elder, the middle-aged, the working class, the students, the teenagers, and the infants. Some of the things that we heard, I really cannot add more to what was already said other than we are entitled to our own opinions on this delicate situation, but some of the respected elders that I have talked to, on and off the committee tour, all agree that, yes, cannabis is here, and what we need is more resources for education.
As a government, we have employees. There is an impairment factor to consuming cannabis, and R and D research does not really dictate what that impairment level is, and some job sites currently support zero tolerance. Is that the zero tolerance of this government and the employees we have?
So those are my only few comments that I have, and I look forward to moving on and allowing us to make forward the adequate resources so that we can reach out to all 33 communities. Unfortunately, our resources only allowed us to visit one of the five communities that I represent. I am hoping that we would not determine ourselves that this is enough, we pass legislation, however it's going to turn out, but we have an action plan through the education of cannabis as a carry-forward for several years to minimize the impacts of cannabis on and off the job site and from our homes, from our communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Next on the list, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also travelled with the Members who travelled in the southern group. It was a very eye-opening experience, and we learned a lot.
This is a monumental undertaking, and I think that that really hit me as we were going to the communities. You only lift a prohibition on a substance less than once in a generation. I always like to strive for excellence in everything we do here, but with this being so important, it was very important to me that we get it right. Unfortunately, it looks like, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, "You legalize cannabis with the legislation you have, not the legislation you want." I think we could have done a much better job with this, and that was really borne out by our community visits.
A lot of what we heard wasn't contemplated by the legislation that was given to us. There was a strong desire in the communities for different methods of purchasing and selling cannabis that this bill just doesn't even consider and doesn't have the framework to undertake. There was a desire for licensed premises that this bill doesn't have the framework to undertake. If the department had gone out and done some more consultation the way the committee did, I think we could have gotten a much better bill, and this is something that we can use to learn in the future.
The highlights of the tour, I think, what I saw the most of was a desire for education. From the youth to the elders, people wanted to be educated about cannabis and its effects. I think, as other Members have commented, with it being legal now, we will be able to get some better education out there. When it's an illegal substance, I think the message is abstinence. "You abstain from this." I think, now that it is legal, there will be more of a focus on getting legitimate information out from a harm reduction perspective.
Education was one of the highlights. The other one was the desire to use this opportunity to create a legitimate economy, especially in places where there is not much of an economy. We heard that especially from young people, and that is really what hit me. There are young people in these communities who want to stay in the community and want some sort of a reason to stay, economically. Like I said, the legislation doesn't contemplate that.
This also highlighted to me some existing inadequacies of our system, especially in terms of mental healthcare and addictions treatment. I do appreciate what the government does when it comes to addictions treatment. One of the committees toured the treatment facilities in the south that the GNWT has contracts with, and I think they are fantastic and they do a great job, but there still is a desire for northern culturally-appropriate treatment options.
People were very concerned about abusing cannabis and abusing alcohol, and they are often lumped together, but I think that the issue isn't treating the addiction. The way I see it is: why do people feel like they need to get high or get drunk? Why do people need to feel like they need to get out of their head? There is something underlying that. Drugs aren't the problem; they are a symptom of a problem. In every community we went to, there was a sense that treating that underlying problem isn't easily done, because there aren't the resources for it.
I hope that this isn't just legalized and forgotten about. I hope that we remember that and use it as a chance to really put a focus on mental health. We talk a lot about infrastructure, but we have to focus on our human infrastructure as well, I think. Those are my takeaways from it, and I just wanted to make those points before we get into the details. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next on the list, we have Ms. Green, then Mr. Vanthuyne. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this prohibition could have ended in one of two ways: the government could simply have walked away from the prohibition and allowed the situation to be unregulated; and the other possibility was to go for maximum regulation. To no one's surprise, both the federal and the territorial governments have gone for maximum regulation, so that we are looking at a system where cannabis is regulated to the maximum extent of alcohol and tobacco jointly. Now people are worried about how there will be resources in place to make all of these regulations stick, and that is a valid question: how are all those regulations going to stick?
What struck me most about the tour was the generational divide. Students wondered why we were there. They consume cannabis, not necessarily chronically, but occasionally. They would appreciate a safe supply, which they won't have access to as minors. They could not see what all the fuss was about. The elders were very frightened about the prospect of legalization because they recall the legalization of alcohol. They have seen the devastation that that has done to their communities, and they are concerned that this devastation will be repeated by cannabis. Then we interacted with parents who were very scared for their children. They are concerned that they will become chronic users and that they will suffer poor health effects, poor outcomes as a result of being chronic users.
One of the other ironies we experienced was that people who were in favour of prohibition were also in favour of profiting from this product. That is a very, as I say, ironic situation, where people, even in the smallest communities, were interested in having cannabis stores. Their argument was that there is an economy there now, so they might as well make it a legal economy and benefit from it in order that those profits may be turned to treatment.
What is clear is that, if we go with the liquor commission system, which I know the government is promoting, then I don't think that we have much hope of disrupting the illegal market in the small communities. I think the dealers who are there now will be there afterwards, and they will continue to sell to whoever their customers are now. I don't know whether that is good or bad, but I think that that is just going to be the reality of it.
I don't agree with the government's attempts to try to regulate the market rather than having the market regulate itself. The Minister said to us the other day that there would be a cannabis store on every corner, like a coffee shop. Well, we don't have coffee shops on every corner. We're not going to have cannabis stores on every corner. The market will regulate itself. If there is no business case for all of these cannabis stores, there won't be a whole bunch of cannabis stores.
Where I came to on this whole bill was the importance of harm reduction, particularly for youth. Youth are vulnerable in this situation, obviously. They are currently at the mercy of dealers who might be selling them contaminated products that do them much more harm than they ever anticipated. I think that we have done a poor job generally of educating youth about illegal substances. I understand that they are illegal, but I think the fact is that many youth do use cannabis and alcohol without any acknowledgement of what the risks are, and that is an area that we really need to pay attention to.
The report tries to roll all of these different issues together, and I really appreciate the staff support we have received to digest the many hearings, written submissions, and other ways that people have told us what they think we should be doing with this legislation.
I appreciate the diligence of my colleagues in going to all of the different communities that we went to, I was with the south group, and to sit and listen until the last person was finished telling us what they think. Some of those communities I haven't seen in 10 years, and I was really struck by how little has changed in them in 10 years, which is good or bad, depending on your point of view. In any case, I appreciate the efforts that people made to reach out to us and tell us what they think of this legislation. I look forward to the discussion about the rest of the report today. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I might be the last to speak on this today in general comments, but I think it is still important to repeat the common themes and messages. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, I was not a member of the joint standing committee that worked together to review Bill 6.
However, I have taken a keen interest in the work of my Regular Member colleagues on the review of this proposed legislation. I have done this as the Member for Yellowknife North on behalf of my constituents, who care about the impacts that cannabis legalization will have on their community. I have also paid close attention to this work as the chair of EDE, who wants to see this initiative translate into business opportunities for Northern entrepreneurs and will clearly support economic diversification as outlined in our mandate.
Mr. Chair, before I speak more specifically to the findings of the joint committees, I want to start by acknowledging the fine work that they have done to undertake a comprehensive review of this extensive omnibus bill under a very tight timeframe. Given the circumstances, I think they have done a very good job of engaging with Northerners and of reflecting their feedback in policy recommendations contained in this report and a series of motions to amend the bill, which are designed to make this legislation the best that it can be.
I understand that we will be discussing proposed motions to amend Bill 6 tomorrow. For today, I will limit my remarks more generally to the committee's report. As impressed as I am with the work of the joint committee, similar to my colleague from Hay River North, I am somewhat unimpressed with the effort the government put into the development of Bill 6. I have reviewed the "what we heard" report, which indicates that a slim majority of respondents support the liquor commission model. I don't believe a slim majority constitutes a mandate for action, however. I can't help but feel that the GNWT had already decided on the liquor commission model out of the sense of panic and the demanding timeframe for legalization set by the federal government, and out of the desire to retain full control of any profits generated by cannabis sales.
Mr. Chair, I will have more to say on the GNWT's work to develop Bill 6 tomorrow when we discuss further motions to amend Bill 6. Suffice it to say for now that I hope further improvements can be made to this bill before it receives final assent.
Mr. Chair, I mentioned the effort of the joint committees to make this legislation the best it can be. I have been paying close attention to the lessons learned by Colorado in their move to legalize cannabis. Their situation is admittedly different than ours, given that they are a jurisdiction producing legal cannabis in the midst of other jurisdictions where it is still illegal. Nonetheless, there are valuable lessons to be learned. One key lesson is that it is very hard to roll back activities and programs related to cannabis legalization once they are authorized by legislation and the legislation is put into force.
On its consultation, the joint committees hear that people support the overall intent of the legalization to minimize and inhibit the illicit black market trade in cannabis. Residents of the Northwest Territories said that, to do this, government needs to make cannabis cheap and plentiful. The failure to do so, whether out of misguided morality that still feels cannabis is taboo or by a motivation to control the revenues that cannabis sales will generate, a tight rein on the sales of cannabis will only serve to promote and support the existing illicit cannabis trade.
That is why it is vitally important to get the legislation right from the outset. The Colorado experience demonstrates that, once the legislation is up and running, there are certain genies that can't be put back in the bottle. I believe that the liquor commission model, which will see cannabis retailing only in a maximum of seven existing liquor stores in six communities, is, in fact, one of those genies. It will never be put back in the bottle.
The joint committees heard broad support for private sector cannabis stores and the potential entrepreneurial and job opportunities that will come with them, especially in our smaller communities, where every job is desperately needed. This reflects what I heard personally from my constituents. The people of Yellowknife North also want the opportunity to get into the retail cannabis sector at the ground floor, not two years from now when the liquor stores have solidified their hold on the market. This was voiced strongly by the Yellowknife and NWT Chamber of Commerce when the joint committees held their Yellowknife consultation.
The joint committees noted that a regulatory framework for licensed establishments is outside the scope of the bill. This is unfortunate. It is also a demonstration of government's short-sightedness in failing to look upon legalization as a potential economic opportunity for Northerners, as outlined in our mandate. I believe the bill should have provided for this type of establishment, which would provide a legal place for people to consume cannabis in a regulated setting, away from minors. This may not be an opportunity that is of interest to all communities, but I can assure you there are businesspeople here in the capital who would have welcomed the opportunity to explore this as a potential venture.
I remain hopeful that all Members, including Cabinet, will give full consideration to this opportunity now as we debate this bill, and not two years from now, when the trenches will have been dug so deep we can't get out.
Today, I understand that the committee chairs will be moving seven substantive motions related to policy recommendations on Bill 6. I support these motions, which, among other things, would require the GNWT to develop a fully costed plan for the implementation of Bill 6 to form an interdepartmental working group to prepare for the future regulation of cannabis-based and high-potency products and licensed establishments for cannabis consumption, and which would require the GNWT to develop economic development programming to support northern entrepreneurship related to cannabis sales and production. This is the kind of comprehensive policy planning and development that northern residents need and deserve as the country moves closer to legalization. Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. It appears we have concluded general comments. Mr. Blake somehow made it back onto the list. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one thing I forgot to mention: it was really surprising that the RCMP didn't really know their role in all of this. It is really surprising. They should have been one of the first ones to know what their role is in all of this.
The other thing was: communities, especially Tsiigehtchic, one of the communities I represent, they were really concerned that more onus is going to be put on the bylaw to enforce a lot of these bylaws or rules that are set aside for the communities, like smoking in public places. The bylaws will most likely be the ones having to police this. That is more added resources and funding that is going to need to be given to those communities, whether it is to hire another bylaw officer or do more training in this field here. I just wanted to make sure that I raised that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. It is my understanding that the chairs will now be moving a series of motions. For those following along at home, the motions relate to the recommendations found in the report. The first recommendation is on page 18, and they continue through to the end of the document. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move that this Assembly recommend that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop a fully costed implementation plan for Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act, including multi-demographic public education, enforcement planning, and expected cannabis revenues;
And further, that this plan be returned to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and the Standing Committee on Social Development for review prior to legalization day;
And furthermore, that the final plan be made available to the public. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. The motion has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the biggest concerns, as I mentioned in my opening comments, is how cannabis, the regulation scheme, is going to be resourced and whether not, and my honourable friend from Mackenzie Delta just mentioned this, whether or not communities are going to have to pony up cash from limited community-level resources to pay for new regulatory officers or inspectors like bylaw officers. The RCMP are concerned, as my honourable friend also mentioned. They do not believe, the conversations I had, there is some skepticism whether or not they have the resources to implement this. So, ensuring that we have proper resources in place to keep communities safe, to understand where the revenues are going to come from, how much they are going to be, and how we can use them to better equip the public with knowledge and tools to keep their communities safe is of paramount importance.
I was disappointed to see that there was no cannabis spending plan in the last operations and maintenance budget, and further disappointed that the supplementary appropriations that we debated yesterday also did not seem to include clear and costed cannabis-related expenditures. So this motion calls on the government to bring forward a fully costed implementation plan before legalization day, and it is, again, borne out of the consultations we did with communities, and it is an attempt to allay their concerns that they will not be left out in the cold when the laws are passed and these regulations require new funding. So I hope to see my colleagues support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I support this motion. I have been asking for this kind of information for over a year from our Cabinet colleagues. I raised it during business plans, and we still do not have anything. The effect of this motion is to ask that that plan be developed and given back to the standing committees. Look, I recognize that this is something new and that it's evolving, but, if you do not even have a game plan, how are we going to do it? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. I will allow the mover to close debate. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think this is an important piece of the puzzle that we need to resolve. I would like to ask for a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for the Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Yellowknife Centre.
All those opposed, please rise. All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha.
The results of the recorded vote are: nine in favour, zero opposed, six abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Anything further on this committee report? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this Assembly recommend that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop curricula to deliver evidence-based health and safety education respecting both cannabis and alcohol, through the territorial education system. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. During our consultation, and especially going into the schools, when we were talking about the education system and getting this material information out there, as some of our colleagues here said, you know, the students were well-informed, but it was based on the Internet and that. Then, when we asked the question in trying to get a good clear direction of it, they basically said that this was not part of the education system. Alcohol and drugs were not part of the education system, and they all said that they should be. It was really interesting listening to the students. They said they would love to see this in the system, evidence-based on the process, so this is where the motion is coming from. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to request a recorded vote, as well, please.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion.
