Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a complex area, and considering we are talking about, I suppose it's the Criminal Code of Canada, and that it would take some doing. That is the reason we are calling for this government to work with the federal government. It is certainly not a simple procedure. It is not a simple procedure, like I said. It will involve more than just a criminal record of an individual who could have a charge or two for possession of marijuana, but then, it's quite possible that individuals have other criminal records. We really have to clearly define which record it is that would be worth a suspension that currently is preventing individuals from obtaining employment.
This is a very focused type of recommendation, and it focuses in on individuals who have one particular type of criminal record, and that being simple possession of marijuana, or other products, cannabis products. It is something that we certainly had a considerable amount of discussion on, and I think it's worthy of an examination for sure by both governments. We're asking our government to work with the federal government to work with those, to remove those barriers for, otherwise, individuals who would be good employees, and who could have a pretty positive impact on our economy.
Many people I know who go through the system, and we have allowed, like income support, for example, have indicated to us that they would pay to have a criminal record suspended for individuals who want to look for work because, in order to get your records suspended, you have to have meet a certain criteria. There's a time period in which you can't be charged. There is a certain type of charge that you can't get suspended. All of those factors are involved when an individual is looking for work, so this is not really a simple -- it's a recommendation, but it's not a simple work. It is a lot of work. The only way that this committee could think of getting this work done is by asking our government, GNWT, to work with the federal government to look into the records. We're thinking that it may not be a high number. Although complex, it may not be a very high number, but it could be very valuable to people who would get their records suspended through this process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it came up in the communities, and it was made quite clear to us that we couldn't go back years, say a couple of years back, if somebody got charged for possession while driving or something. It made it quite clear that this starts from July 1st onwards, so I'm going to make that clear. I don't see why everybody can't support this one. As I mentioned, it came up in the communities. It wasn't quite clear how we will move forward, so I guess some work needs to be done with the federal government on how they're going to move forward on this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some friends who also asked about this. As the previous speaker said, this is something new going in. This is something that maybe should be looked at during a time of a review. I think right now, it would be so costly and so many things in the air that we would kind of be making false promises to people who don't understand as much, possibly.
I know a lot of people who wanted to travel to the States but are prohibited because of marijuana at the border. I think we may become flooded if something like this happens, and people may be flooding from provinces to come to the territory and drain the legal system for something as simple as this. I think a time of review would be more of an adequate time to look at something like this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, brought this up in one of the communities, or several of the communities, in trying to educate the students. We want them to take it seriously, to have a clean abstract before entering into the workforce, and to maintain that, I see this motion supporting that, to do more consultation to have it in plain English straightforward on what it is going to take to have an offence on your abstract. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu NedheWiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, and the Member for Yellowknife North.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Nunakput.
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, and the Member for Thebacha.
The results of the recorded vote are: nine in favour, one opposed, six abstentions. Motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this Assembly recommend that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop economic development programming to support northern entrepreneurship related to cannabis sales and production. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Government of the Northwest Territories has several strong and successful programs to support entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities, including the Support to Entrepreneurs and Economic Development, SEED, Policy.
The government has done some really good stuff and good work on there. This motion here is to encourage the government to repeat that Northerners are eager to pursue the economic benefits of legalization and to target programming addressing cannabis-specific planning and programs that would help local businesses. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You heard me say in my opening comments that I would like to see this initiative, this bill, translate into business opportunities for northern entrepreneurs, and this committee motion supports that.
As the report alludes to, committee heard in a number of communities that they wanted to see the opportunity for economic diversification. A number of the communities are in situations where employment is in dire need. This could be seen as an opportunity to help vet that.
We also understand that this is an opportunity in which we can make cannabis use a little bit safer. If the only avenue that we are going to undertake is selling cannabis through a handful of stores managed by the territorial government, then you can bet that the back channels of illicit sales and black market activities will continue.
The government, I think, can look at this as also the opportunity to generate additional revenues through taxation. The more opportunity that we allow for the market to get into the retail of cannabis, then certainly this is going to become a revenue generator through permits and taxation.
This clearly supports our mandate as a government as it relates to economic diversification, as it relates to support for even manufacturing, and most certainly for small business and entrepreneurs, but most importantly, this also will have our government develop programming, and that programming will help to further inform and educate those people having an interest. One can envision, potentially, BDIC having specific programming to do just that. For those reasons, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The laws of supply and demand have a particular relevance to illicit substances such as cannabis, or any drug for that matter. Narcotics are easy to produce, especially cannabis. It is a weed; it grows just about anywhere. It is easy to produce, and the price point of cannabis is, in fact, created largely by its illegal status, which has fuelled the profitability for organized crime and low-level dealers to make a living off the sale of illicit cannabis.
To deal with that market, because clearly the demand in the Northwest Territories is very high, as it is across the country, the correct way to disable this market and this illicit trade of cannabis is to control the prices and make it preferable to purchase a regulated source of cannabis for recreational use outside black market channels. The only way that we are going to get there is if we can ensure that the price point is low enough that we can keep the prices down.
Recent economic analysis, which isn't complete because the consumption of cannabis is largely underground, shows that price point as somewhere around $7.50 on grey market and black market sales. The proposed rule in Canada is at least a starting point of $10 per gram. Yukon, our neighbours, have announced that it will be $8 per gram. Our government has not announced anything yet, and my fear is that the wholesale price for cannabis will come in much higher than we can effectively make the price affordable and accessible, and we will continue to see people go to their drug dealers for cannabis.
Economic analysis also shows that there is a lot of price sensitivity toward cannabis from chronic users. As much as a dollar in price difference will keep people from buying legal cannabis. Price controls are crucial. If we are relying on southern wholesalers, which appears to be the case, I am skeptical that we will get the best possible deal, just because our market is so small compared to Alberta, compared to British Columbia, compared to Ontario. If we can't effectively control the wholesale price, then we can't pass that off to consumers without massive subsidies, which this government, quite frankly, can't afford or is not going to prioritize.
How do we get around this? Well, we privatize as much of the components of the retail system and the production system as possible. Production is regulated by the federal government, but that doesn't mean our government can't provide support and be an agent and advocate for people with licences in the Northwest Territories who want to grow and supply our retail market. If the supply chain is short enough to be located in the Northwest Territories, I think we can at least offset some of those costs and keep the wholesale price low, which will, in turn, keep the retail price low, which will get cannabis off the streets and into the regulated market. If we do nothing and the wholesale price remains too high, then nothing is going to change, and that is the worst-case scenario, so we need to do more.
In addition to it being about entrepreneurs and about supporting entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk, this is about achieving our public safety goals, about ending prohibition and developing a system that works and that works to keep our people safe. It is not going to be easy. It is going to mean taking some risks and a government that is willing to take risks and bet on Northerners. I encourage this government to do exactly that.
Finally, anyone who wants to be either a retailer of cannabis or a producer of cannabis is going to have to take a risk because the market is untested. Right now, people who are looking to do that across this country are being advised to talk to hedge fund managers and investment analysts because there are risks involved, but people are still willing to take these risks. I know that there are people in this community who have licenses from Health Canada to grow cannabis. They are federally licensed to produce medical marijuana. Those people are willing to step up to the plate and get involved in the production here in the North if the government is willing to take them up on that offer and support their ambitions.
I hope that the government will take this motion seriously, that they won't wait until 120 days later to say, "We thought about it, but we're not going to do it," but take this seriously because the benefits to the public are going to be a lower price point for wholesale cannabis, which will be a lower price point for retail cannabis, which will take it off of the streets, out of the black market, and into the regulated market, which is exactly what we are trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McNeely.
Mr. Chair, my questions have been answered.
Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't reiterate too much; we've gone through this a lot. I would like to think about the federal government and also Indigenous governments, as well, while this is being said. I think some parts of that are left out, so we need to look at those other entities, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I know this came up mostly here in the southern part of the territory, not too much up in the northern section. As, you know, for the most part, these are the early days of legalization; there wasn't really an issue. Well, really, I've never even heard it mentioned, the need for programming or anything like this. Moving forward, possibly, I'm sure that's why the government wanted to put this under the liquor stores at the start of this process, to ensure that businesses and people didn't fail trying to get into this business. The way the government sees it is it's not a money maker, it's not a cash grab, which most people feel it is. At the price that it is being sold for, there is really no room for profit, you know, with shipping and everything like this, so it makes it kind of difficult for me to support this.
I know it is developing programming, but what is coming along with that programming? Are there going to be funds expected to come along with this? That is my concern here, is it is not even legalized yet, but we're trying to put funding available to start up stores and everything like this, but in my riding, for example, it's difficult enough just to get any programs available like this, and it kind of makes it difficult. It would be different if it came up in every community that we needed programs and economic opportunities for people to start up in the communities. I know two different individuals that brought it up in a couple of different communities, but it just makes it a little difficult for me to support this one here. So, with that, Mr. Chair, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Is the House ready for the question? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'm going to support this, but I think that the expectations of some, in terms of the economic opportunities from cannabis sales, are not going to be nearly as significant as some folks seem to claim, and I am worried that we are setting up some people to fail by raising some very high expectations around this. I do think that there are probably more significant opportunities available around local production, but that is going to take a bit of time to sort out, as well. We do have programs under SEED that could support both, I think, sales and production. Having cannabis special programs to target cannabis sale and production, I'm not sure we need to go that far. At the end of the day, I will support the motion, but I do have some reservations, like my colleague from the Mackenzie Delta, about this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli. To the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I agree with my colleague, too, that I think we are kind of raising the expectations pretty high, if I could put it that way. In one instance we're going to study an established working group and study the idea of the entrepreneurial and economic aspect of this initiative. Then here we are kind of jumping, taking a leap in terms of establishing economic development programs and then supporting northern entrepreneurs, so there are expectations that are really high, and we need to ensure that we are fairly consistent.
I think a colleague had expressed that, in the communities that we visited, there were a few people who spoke in favour of the business or economic aspect of cannabis legalization. For the most part, what I've heard, at least from my communities, is an overall social concern in terms of how it will impact the community; but, in saying that, I will support this motion.
Thank you. I will allow the mover to close debate and ask for a recorded vote if he wants. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate everybody speaking on this behalf. I guess this recommendation is being proactive instead of reactive, so we are trying to be proactive and are trying to move forward. We've heard that there is the potential of it to fail and there is potential to be successful, but it is no different than any other business. If you do a good plan, you are going to be successful, you know, and right now that's what we are trying to do, is we are trying to develop programs that will help the people be successful that put a good plan together. That, to me, is what we are recommending. I appreciate everything, just what I've heard from my riding, and I've had letters that they want to do businesses and they want to have production. Is it feasible? I'm not sure, but there are people who are already starting to work on it. So I thank everybody for their comments, and, yes, I would like a recorded vote, thank you.
The Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, and the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
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 Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for the Sahtu, the Member for Nunakput.
The results of the recorded vote are: seven in favour, zero opposed, nine abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Testart.
Mr. Chair, I move that this Assembly recommend that the Government of the Northwest Territories consider specific spending targets for the disbursement of cannabisrelated revenues aimed at public education, public awareness, and public health research related to cannabis use;
And further, that the Liquor Commission report on cannabis sales in its annual report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this addresses the concern we heard from the public, even in communities that did not want cannabis or that did not want cannabis opportunities or did not see any side of the economic equation but were merely looking at it from a public safety / public health equation. I believe all or at least the vast majority wanted a share of cannabis revenues, either to help them with enforcement, to help with public education. In Inuvik, for example, we heard someone say all of the cannabis revenue should go to community public infrastructure to close the infrastructure gap there. So, clearly, there was a lot of concern. Whether or not you wanted business opportunities, there was always a constant concern about revenue sharing and how the revenue was going to be reflected in communitylevel priorities and public health priorities. So, the committee tried to find a balanced approach and recommend that cannabis revenues be used in the most appropriate way, and this motion identifies those.
If I could just get Members to quiet down and maybe turn off their mobile devices. There have been quite a few distractions during this debate, and it's important material, so I would appreciate if Members on both sides of the House would comply. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Testart. Please continue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your intervention. Further, as to what I was saying, the three areas that we identify here as a committee; public education, public awareness, and public health research related to cannabis use, were felt to be the most appropriate uses for any potential cannabisrelated revenues, and these are areas that largely are underdeveloped.
Obviously, we have only begun public education; public awareness is also in its early stages; and public health research is very limited. It's hard to study an illicit substance, and the limited information we have is not a complete picture of cannabis use. I contrast that with tobacco usage, where we can look at a tobacco smoker from an entire lifetime compared to someone who does not smoke tobacco and compare health outcomes, but we cannot do that with cannabis. So, by funding these activities, I think it will ultimately result in a more informed and bettereducated public when it comes to legal cannabis.
Further, my notes from our consultation said something that kept coming up each and every hearing we had: public education is key to responsible cannabis usage. So I think the people very much understand, the people we serve very much understand, that public education is going to be the most important responsibility of this or any future government in dealing with cannabis or any other addictive substance.
Finally, to get a better picture of the market, the consumption rates, the recommendation is also that the Liquor Commission report on cannabis sales in its annual report and that can be reviewed by the Assembly and by the public, as well. I hope Members will be able to support this committee motion that was developed by both standing committees, and I would like a recorded vote when the time comes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Ms. Green.
