Agreed.
Clause 7?
Agreed.
Committee, to Bill 21 as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Bill 21 is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Bill 21?
Agreed.
Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses from the Chamber. [Microphone turned off] Bill 6, and I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the bill to introduce the bill. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development and the Standing Committee on Government Operations for their review of this bill and for the constructive feedback they have provided. A number of motions were made in committee, and I am pleased that the bill has improved as a result.
The development of Bill 6 required significant interdepartmental collaboration and has benefited from feedback from the public, Indigenous governments, community governments, and other stakeholders, received during an extensive engagement process that occurred during the summer and fall of 2017. Since that time, the joint standing committee has conducted further engagement with residents, and we look forward to hearing about that today.
We recognize that not everyone agrees with all aspects of the legislation being proposed, but, as a government, we have an obligation to make the best decisions we can to design a system that puts the health and safety of our residents first and that follows the guiding principles that received overwhelming support during the engagement.
In addition to the feedback received from our cannabis engagement process, other important factors that were considered when determining our approach included:
discussion and information from other jurisdictions;
discussion with enforcement partners;
practical and financial implications for implementation in the required timeframe; and
current research on the health impacts of cannabis.
Bill 6 includes three schedules.
In the first schedule, the Department of Finance proposes the new Cannabis Products Act. This will enable the GNWT to assume responsibility for the importation and sale of cannabis products through the Liquor Commission, under the direction of the Minister of Finance. The Act will provide for a cannabis mail-order system to communities that do not have a retail store, and those communities will have the option of holding a plebiscite to decide if restrictions or prohibitions will be put in place. The new act will set 19 years of age as the legal minimum for purchase and possession of cannabis and maintain the federal possession limits, which will allow adults 19 years of age and older to possess up to 30 grams in public and to grow up to four plants in a household.
In the second schedule, the Department of Health and Social Services is proposing the new Cannabis Smoking Control Act. It will place restrictions on the public smoking of cannabis products similar to laws governing the smoking of tobacco products, with a number of additional restrictions. The new act will also require cannabis retail outlets to post health warning signage distributed by the department.
In the third and final schedule, the Department of Infrastructure has proposed several amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act to create additional penalties for drug and alcohol impaired drivers. These will include zero tolerance laws for novice drivers, drivers aged 21 and under, and commercial drivers. Administrative licence suspensions will also be established for all drivers who fail a standardized field sobriety test or an evaluation by a drug recognition expert. The current legislation governing impaired driving will be amended to appropriately address drug-impaired driving and to reflect the repeal and replacement of the transportation section of the Criminal Code under the federal Bill C-46. Amendments are also proposed to allow the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to release driver's abstracts directly to law enforcement.
I would like to acknowledge the collaboration amongst departments to bring forward this legislation under the challenging timelines, and also the willingness of the committees to work together to review this bill and to ensure we are in a position to respond effectively to the federal legislation.
I would be pleased to answer any questions regarding Bill 6. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Minister. I would now like to ask the chairs of the Standing Committee on Social Development and Government Operations which reviewed this bill to make comments. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am going to start out a little something here personally. People realize I personally did not support the legalization of cannabis. I would have liked to have seen the legalization process adjourned for at least another year. We heard that in the communities to get it done right. Unfortunately, this was brought by the federal government, and we needed to get it done right, as I said before.
I am one of the MLAs who represent small communities. I want to make that very clear. There are six communities in my riding, five small communities and one regional centre.
Mr. Chair, yesterday, I spoke about the consultation that the committee undertook, and what we learned on our travels. It is our jobs as Regular MLAs to listen to what the people are saying, and to come back and find ways to make amendments to the bill that will make it better based on what we want, what the people want. I take the job very seriously, and I also take my role as the Chair of the Standing Committee of Social Development very seriously. The committee system is a system of teamwork. It is not always easy to work on a team. You have to listen to the input of your colleagues. We have had to make compromises and trade-offs that respect the needs of other Members and their ridings while still being true to the needs of your own constituents.
The joint standing committees worked very hard on the bill to improve Bill 6. In total, there were 22 motions to amend the bill. Nine of these were government motions, and two were made by an individual Member. The remaining 11 were motions of the joint committee. Government concurred with all but two of the committee's motions. These are the motions we will be considering today, and I will speak to each in more detail at the right time.
For now, I want to say that the committee's motions to amend the bill were carefully considered. They were debated and discussed. We reached agreement, and we supplemented the motions to change the bill with a series of policy recommendations. I am proud of the work we did as a joint committee, which is reflected in our committee report, and I stand behind it. I believe this truly reflects what the people of my riding said about Bill 6.
I am aware that some of my colleagues of the joint committee may not be prepared to support the motions. This is deeply concerning for me, or disappointing for me. Personally, it is disappointing for me; however, I am aware that ordinary MLAs get a lot of pressure from outside this House, which sometimes changes what is happening. As I have heard, this is the reality of consensus government, and we have to respect it. We have worked hard, and we worked in good faith. We compromised to reach agreement on a way forward. Like I said, the committee worked as a team. I sincerely hope those who worked with me on the review of Bill 6 and who may now be thinking about not supporting the work of the committee will reconsider their position and support the work that we have collaborated to achieve. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to thank the work of my colleagues on the Standing Committee of Government Operations and the Standing Committee on Social Development.
This was no easy task, and throughout the whole review period the committee was charged with the review of this bill. We had many developments hanging over us. Most importantly, the federal legislation that will legalize cannabis. I want to be clear that this legislation, Bill 6, is not the key to legalizing cannabis. Changes to the Criminal Code are, and that is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government.
During our review period, developments in the Senate called for a delay in implementation of the legislation. Many Members on the committee heard firsthand that we should be waiting. We shouldn't be rushing into this. I want to commend the dedication and the courage of committee Members to embrace this legislation and do the best job they can with it. As my honourable friend from Nahendeh just said, he is not in favour of cannabis legalization, and that is not an uncommon position in this House; however, the federal initiative and the momentum behind legal cannabis is to a degree where it's not stopping, and we have to see it through to the end, and we need to design rules and laws that suit the needs of our people. I feel that the work of the standing committee has done that.
Our recommendations and our efforts to improve the bill were made, not just from the community consultations, which are crucial at times like these when we are making changes to the fundamental nature of our society, but they also come from well-researched positions, and an extensive amount of research from our own research bureau that supports our committee work, and further, the individual priorities of Members.
Fundamentally, as much as people are concerned, and we've heard this loud and clear, about addictions in the Northwest Territories and the overwhelming social crisis that they represent, the prohibition of cannabis has failed. It has failed to keep communities safe. It has failed to keep cannabis out of the hands of kids. Nearly every community we went to, there was a witness who talked about the prevalence of cannabis in the community. It didn't matter if it was a small, isolated, rural, remote community, or the City of Yellowknife, cannabis is here in our communities. It is here today. Neither this legislation, nor the federal legislation that enables it, is introducing cannabis into the 33 communities in the Northwest Territories. It is already here, and we need a better system to deal with it.
What we have endeavoured to do, working together, is to build that system, and build it in a way that reflects the priorities of Northerners. This bill is very flexible, Mr. Chair. This bill, if passed, will allow for communities to determine their own rules for cannabis through a plebiscite process. It is very flexible towards possession limits, and it ensures the public safety by placing zero tolerance on impaired driving, which is a number one concern of people that we heard loud and clear.
I do share my colleagues' concerns around what will happen as we continue on these proceedings. The standing committees worked diligently together, and the support we received was consensus-based and reflective of the viewpoints of all of our ridings. Ten Members of this House served on that committee and worked together to produce the report. At the end of the day, I hope that we all can stand up, those same 10 Members can stand up, and support the motions that are brought forward, and we can ultimately complete our work of improving this bill.
The outstanding issues that will be brought forward on the floor of the House today that will seek to improve the bill, the amendments that will be brought forward by Members here, are crucially important to the people that we serve. They are supported by the consultations, they are supported by medical and scientific evidence, and they also support the intentions of this bill, which is to keep our community safe, to disrupt the black market, to fight against bootleggers and drug dealers, and to keep cannabis out of the hands of our kids.
I encourage everyone to let their viewpoints be known today, but also to reflect on the tremendous amount of work that the joint committee did on this bill and to work together once again to ensure that we can complete our work and improve this bill before it receives third reading. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. I know there are people already in line, but we will just finish the process first, then open it up.
I would now like to ask the Minister responsible for Bill 6 if he would like to bring witnesses into the House. Thank you, committee. I will now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Would the Minister please introduce his witnesses? Thank you.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right is Mark Aitken, assistant deputy minister, Attorney General branch of Justice. To his right is Mike Reddy, director, Legislation Division, Justice, and to my left is Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board, Finance. Thank you.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 6, Cannabis Legislation and Regulation Implement Act. First on the list, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, yesterday, I spoke about my support for the seven substantive policy recommendations designed by the joint standing committee to improve the government's planning and program development related to the legalization of cannabis. Today, I would like to speak more specifically about the content of Bill 6.
First, I want to start by recognizing that the short and demanding time frame for development of this bill was set by the federal government and was not ideal. I appreciate the work that my Cabinet colleagues have done to get legislation before us prior to the federal legalization date, to ensure that we do not get stuck with the default federal framework.
With that said, however, as I suggested yesterday, I feel that the GNWT could have done more to develop a bill that meets the needs of Northerners, while also preparing for legalization.
In my Member's statement at the beginning of this sitting, I voiced my concern that this government is not doing enough to assist Northerners by supporting employment initiatives and economic development opportunities and those designed to lower the cost of living. As I mentioned, we have seen: power rate increases equating to near 40 per cent over the last seven years, the latest increase coming tomorrow, by the way; new airport taxes which increased the cost of everything through airport transport; increased land lease fees up to 300 per cent; increased medical service fees; increased Deh Cho Bridge tolls; and coming soon, a land transfer tax and an NWT carbon tax, which will be on top of Alberta's carbon tax that we already pay on goods and services from the south.
In this context, and recognizing that the GNWT loses approximately $30,000 in federal transfer payments for every resident that leaves the Northwest Territories in search of employment elsewhere, you would think that the GNWT would welcome legalization of cannabis for the employment and economic development potential it brings to the NWT. Instead, we have, in Bill 6, a proposal that would see the GNWT retain a large portion of the revenues that will flow from the sale of cannabis, except for those that go to a select group of business people currently already selling alcohol on commission from the GNWT through seven liquor stores in six communities.
I am deeply disappointed that Bill 6 does little to acknowledge or capitalize on the job creation and economic development opportunities that cannabis legalization brings. The liquor store model, which the government has made a policy decision to implement, shuts out those who want to be a part of this business opportunity at the outset.
As well, Bill 6 does not consider the regulation of establishments allowing for the consumption of cannabis, sometimes referred to as "cannabis cafes." For this reason, the standing committees could not even contemplate amending the bill to allow for such establishments.
I can only hope that economic development will be given much higher priority when the Legislative Assembly reviews this legislation during the 19th Assembly, a requirement, I might add, that was included in Bill 6 as an amendment put forward by the joint committee and supported by the Minister during Monday's public clause-by-clause review.
Speaking of the clause-by-clause review, I want to point out, for the benefit of members of the public who might be listening, that the committees moved 22 motions to amend the bill at the meeting. Of those, nine were motions developed by government to address deficiencies in the bill.
While government may occasionally ask standing committees to put forward a motion to correct an oversight or drafting error in a bill, it is not common to see so many changes, or ones as substantive as some of these. For example, the motion to amend the bill to give the GNWT regulation-making authority over cultivation, or the motions to create new sections addressing transitional rules for cannabis cultivation and smoking in rental properties and condominium corporations.
These are significant changes to the bill that the public did not have the opportunity to be consulted on, because the GNWT failed to conceive of their need when Bill 6 was developed. The fact that even the government found it necessary to make significant changes to the original bill suggests to me that the joint committee has all the more reason to make further important amendments to improve Bill 6, which brings me to my final point as I conclude my general comments, Mr. Chair.
Of the 22 motions moved by the joint committee at the clause-by-clause review, there were two that were carried by the committees, but which the Minister declined to concur with. I understand that these motions will be moved during today's proceedings, and I will have further comments at that time.
Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like much of our legislation, what we have before us is a compromise worked out with Members in this Chamber.
It is quite right that we were put under pressure by the federal government when they announced that they were going to move ahead on their promise made during the election to change the criminalization of cannabis. It was an election promise, but I think we were a little surprised when it came forward as early as it did.
This did put pressures on this jurisdiction, and in fact, all jurisdictions, to respond and bring forth legislation that dealt with the areas that we would be concerned with. I believe what we have brought forward is suitable to the Northwest Territories. We looked at many things. We looked at other legislation. We certainly listened to the observations and concerns expressed by committees. Our officials went out. There was public engagement, and I believe there were over a thousand online submissions, so there were many opinions out there, including some that felt that cannabis should not be legalized in the first place, but, of course, that was a federal government decision.
So, yes, this bill, Bill 6, is a compromise, but we feel it's a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. Again, we were under a time pressure. We have responded. We have consulted with the public and the Members in this Chamber. Again, I believe that Bill 6 is the appropriate legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on the list, we have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just speaking in general terms about the bill, I found it interesting that, when we went around and did our tour, in general, we heard some mixed opinions on whether or not cannabis should be introduced, legal cannabis should be introduced, into the small communities. Essentially, all of the larger communities will have liquor stores, and there will be cannabis, legal cannabis, sold in the stores, in the liquor stores. In general, my feeling is that the government is introducing legal pot into some communities and is refusing to introduce legal pot into other communities, therefore keeping the door open for illegal pot or illegal cannabis in small communities.
What I feel that we are asking by making a motion, I guess which we are going to discuss today, was to ask the government to open it up to everyone equally. At this point, the government has essentially set up a two-tiered system, one for larger communities that already have liquor stores, and then, for smaller communities, they are left to their own devices to how they are going to bring legal pot into their communities. That's one alternative. The other alternative would be continue with the consumption of illegal pot.
I can't understand why the government would want to paint themselves into that corner, and I don't know why.
It seemed like, when we went out, when we were asked to take the bill on the road, for the most part, people felt that they should be treated equally. All people in the territories felt that they should be treated equally, that opportunities to go down a couple of blocks and purchase legal pot should be available to everyone. I can't believe that people would be so ignorant as to believe that by preventing a marijuana store in a community will prevent people from smoking marijuana. That is unbelievable to me.
Marijuana has been in the Northwest Territories, I think, since the 1960s, a long, long time, and many people smoke marijuana in the territories and across this country. That is why it's becoming legal. We have heard from the experts that there is no one in prison because of smoking marijuana; there is no one dying from smoking marijuana.
When the government introduced alcohol to the Northwest Territories, when the government allowed people, Dene people, to drink alcohol, it was just done because the government was making a lot of money off it. Initially, the bootleggers were making a lot of money off it, so the government introduced alcohol, and I am not glad there's not alcohol in all of the communities, mind you, but marijuana is a different kind of drug.
People don't smoke marijuana and then go out and commit heinous crimes, and that's a fact, and I don't think anybody could dispute that, not in here or anywhere, so I find it very unusual that the government takes a position to introduce marijuana to certain communities only, and so, if you're in a fly-in community, maybe it's going to cost you five, six, seven, or eight hundred dollars to get to a marijuana store if you want to purchase legal pot, in addition to the cost of the pot.
I believe that the actions of this government are going to only increase the sale of illegal pot. There is no way that individuals -- and, as I have said many times in the House, there is no employment in small communities, and people will have the legal right to smoke marijuana, but it's going to be very expensive if you don't have a store in your community, very expensive. You're going to have to fly somewhere or drive somewhere. Even the drive, I have two communities that will be quite a distance from the nearest liquor store. One community, it will cost $450 to buy a plane ticket to come to Yellowknife. In another community, you have to drive 330 kilometres round trip in order to purchase legal marijuana. In people's right minds, they're not going to do that, and the government's got to know that.
It's ridiculous that the government could say, "We're just going to open in certain places because it'll govern that we don't want to put it in small communities." That's a right. It's a legal right for individuals to have marijuana, and that's going to happen on July 1st right across this country, yet we, as a government, make a decision that we are going to restrict it to certain communities. You know, it was good that they had allowed plebiscites in communities that don't have liquor stores. That's fine. If the majority of the communities say they don't want to have marijuana present in their community, legal marijuana present in their community, that it's illegal to possess marijuana in your community, even though it's legal in every other community, then that's their right to do so, but they should be given that option. Why would they remove the option? Why is the government presupposing that that's what should happen and remove that ability or that right for individuals to have marijuana in their communities?
I find that -- like, I can't explain it. I can't explain the rationale. People have come in small communities and said, "If we put a store in a community, it's going to, you know, it's mad. It's like alcohol." Well, it's not like alcohol, at all. You've got to quit advising people that this is an enhancement of alcohol. It's two different drugs. Two different drugs have two different types of effects on a person's body.
There are a lot of people that do not do either. Many people in the territories don't smoke marijuana. Many people don't drink alcohol. That's a personal choice. They have the right to do it, but they don't. However, if we pass this bill as is and we don't look at changing it and we don't look at opening it up to smaller communities, then that right is removed from individuals. The government must be flexible. It must be flexible to be able to positively allow people their rights.
Everyone in the Northwest Territories should have the right to be able to purchase marijuana where they wish to do so if they wish to smoke marijuana. The government has to be prudent enough to let the market decide how drugs or marijuana should be sold in the communities or cannabis should be sold in the communities. The government's going to go into liquor stores. They are going to set the price. Drug dealers are going to come in and lower the price. It's gonna happen, guys. You got to open it up. This is not a prudent thing to do, restricting it to only some communities and everybody else can fend for themselves. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Beaulieu. Would the Minister like to respond?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, yes, our initial plan is that it will be sold through the current liquor stores, but it's important to remember also that there will be in the future, online or mail-order schemes so that those outside of those communities that have a liquor store will have the ability to obtain marijuana. The bill doesn't limit the designation to the current liquor stores; in the future there may be other vendors that are designated. As I say, our thinking has evolved in this, thanks in part, because of the submissions that have been made by committees, and, yes, there may not be a vendor in every community, but as I said, there may be other ways to obtain cannabis.
In comparing ourselves to some of the other jurisdictions, I note that, in Ontario, there are only going to be 40 retail outlets, so one outlet for every 300 000 people. We're going to have more per capita than that. Now obviously there are geographic challenges, but as I say, hopefully online or mail-order will solve some of those problems.
Certainly, we do want to end the black market in marijuana, and that is one of the purposes of the federal bill. These issues have been around for a long time. Mr. Beaulieu pointed out that marijuana has been here, I think he mentioned from the 1960s, probably even longer than that. There have been many changes suggested over the years, as long ago as the Le Dain Commission, which I think was in the early 1970s, which looked at the marijuana legislation. Who would have thought it would have taken 45 more years to come to where we are now?
So, yes, it may be that people in the larger communities will have easier access to cannabis, but there are ways that people in other communities, should they wish, will be able to obtain either by online or mail-order. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on the list, we have Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am just going to take a step back. I want to reiterate a point that another of my colleagues made, which is that we didn't ask for this legislation. Ottawa decided within its own power that it was a good idea to legalize cannabis, and what we were left with as the NWT, along with the other territories and provinces, is how to implement the legalization of cannabis. In undertaking this job, a really huge job, we are breaking new ground about how to make that happen. As my colleague the Member for Hay River North says often, and it's worth repeating again, there's never been an end to prohibition before in our lifetime. We don't know what this looks like and we don't have a map for it.
So that left us in the position of reviewing legislation created by the territorial government that was supposed to, or theoretically addresses three areas; harm reduction, the security of the supply chain, and public safety. The result is this huge bill, 60 pages and three schedules. What we know is that people are very leery of this legalization because of the devastation they've witnessed of alcohol in their communities, in their families, and perhaps even in their own lives. Alcohol is a huge problem in the NWT. I noted yesterday that one of the measures of the problems that alcohol causes, which is hospitalizations resulting primarily from alcohol, has again gone up, and it is higher in the NWT than in most other places.
That was a message that I certainly paid attention to when we were travelling around, and we heard more of it in the small communities than we did in the regional centres, I think because the effects are really magnified in those small populations, and because people care deeply for one another, because most often they are related, directly or indirectly.
So the public engagement was very thorough, and the southern committee chaired by my colleague Mr. Thompson, we certainly made every effort to hear what people had to say with open hearts, without prejudging the results. We came back here and we tried to work on ways to improve the legislation that we'd received, and to make it more reflective of what we had heard, and the result was, as my colleague from Yellowknife North said, 20-plus motions to adjust the bill. The government agreed with many, but not all of those adjustments. We are left with two very substantial areas of disagreement; the first, as the member for Yellowknife Centre said, is about vendorship. It's about how new vendors are going to be brought into this process outside the Liquor Commission, and also, as my colleague from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh described very well, how to make this into a system that is fair to everyone and not into a two-tier system, where people with liquor stores have access to cannabis, and people without liquor stores don't.
Today we are going to try again to address that issue, and another issue that is very important to me, which is the issue of co-location. There is no question in my mind, and I will speak about this at length, that co-location is a bad idea. It takes the problems of alcohol and compounds them with cannabis. In the current vendorship situation of having sales only in communities that have commercial market rental, there is no reason to have co-location. That's something that we'll be talking about.
Mr. Chair, people often ask me, not always in a joking way, what we do when we're not sitting here. The answer is that we do this kind of work. We take government bills, we make every effort to understand them, and then we take them out to the public and ask them what they think of the legislation. We do our best to reflect what they've said to us and to improve the legislation that we've been given. That is a big part of what we do, and the Order Paper reflects that we are going to be doing much more of this in the time remaining in the 18th Assembly.
Finally, I just want to reflect on how unfortunate it is that the Regular Members have split between the northern MLAs and the other MLAs in support of the amendments. Last week the Members supported the amendments, but I realize that that may not be the case today. It turns out that solidarity is fleeting, and I think that's very unfortunate; but at the same time I also recognize that it's an issue that I don't have any influence over. My hope today is for a thorough and respectful debate of the remaining amendments, and that we will be able to continue improving the act before it's made law. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Would the Minister like to respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are an awful lot of opinions out there as to how we should proceed. I know that when our officials went out, and I'm looking at the report on what we heard, there were quite a few different suggestions about how to proceed. I do see, at page 20 of the report, there seemed to be, when asked the question, "Do you favour sales controlled by a GNWT agency or a more open system," there was a slight majority in favour of a GNWT agency, such as the Liquor Commission, but when we got to other questions, such as retail model suggestions, there were many, many different suggestions.
One that received the most support seemed to be the Liquor Commission one. There's one that suggested a tobacco model, a pharmacy health centre model, online mail order model, GNWT-operated dispensaries, private retailers, entrepreneurs. Raising taxes, I see, is one, and nowhere -- I guess those were opposed -- and others. I'm not sure what they wanted. It's not surprising that there were an awful lot of opinions on the other side of the House, if I can put it that way, because there are a lot of differences of opinion within Cabinet. However, we felt in the end that this was the way to proceed. So there were active discussions on our side, also.
Ms. Green has raised the issue of co-location, which is a complicated issue, and I am well aware that the McLellan Report stated that that might not be the best way to go, but that same report acknowledged that smaller and remote communities may not have the flexibility to accommodate a dedicated separate retail location. So it's a very, very tough issue. We are alive to it. As I say, I think all of us had different opinions going into this situation. We're now having to respond to the federal government's initiative, and I think we've come forward with a compromise bill that probably doesn't make everybody happy, but I think it is most appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Committee will now take a short recess. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Next on our list, we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That dinner was a tough act to follow.
I made some remarks when we were discussing the committee report a couple of days ago where I thanked committee and the public, and I don't really want to go over that ground again, but I want to say that I do personally agree with legalization. I wish that we had more time, though, and that much of our efforts, and I think most of the efforts have been very well-intentioned, have been really fraught with poor communications. We have had to deal with a whole set of very complex, difficult issues, and it has been very divisive. I think we are going to see more of that, unfortunately, today.
I am a bit resentful of the amount of time that this has taken up, and I wish that we could have probably devoted this time to a number of other issues. I recognize that this is largely brought on by the federal government, and it is probably going to be the most significant legislation that this Assembly deals with. It could lead to some very profound changes that we probably can't anticipate right now.
I also feel that this is being rushed and that we are basically in a big pressure cooker. There are a number of residual issues that we are going to talk about here this evening. They really boil down to things like the retail model, whether cannabis and liquor should be sold out of the same location. I have some issues around the age limit, which I am going to try to address in one way, and I will be bringing forward another motion to try to improve the toolbox that communities have once a cannabis store is located in their community.
Also, there are a number of underlying issues here that I think are really fundamental. The most important is ministerial authority. That is what this is really about, and much of the debate that we are going to be talking about in the motions to come is really about ministerial authority. That's what it's all about, and unfortunately, it has boiled down to Cabinet versus the Regular MLAs and some issues of trust, as well.
I have said that we're not going to get this right. No matter what we do, whatever kind of comprises people are going to make, we're not going to get this right, and we're going to make mistakes. The one, I think, important feature of the bill that is now before us is that there will be a review within two or three years, the next Assembly will conduct that, on the implementation of the bill. It will be up to those that come after us to review this and try to make it better.
I think, Mr. Chair, that is all I want to say for now. Like my colleague from Yellowknife Centre, I do hope for a respectful debate. I know everybody is trying to do their best to represent their ridings and their citizens and do the best thing for the Northwest Territories, even if we disagree. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Would the Minister like to respond?
Not really. I know that this has been a divisive issue, and hopefully, at the end of this, we can come together with the best kind of bill possible. Sometimes it is said that the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is not a perfect bill, I don't think anybody would say this, but I think it is a good bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on the list, we have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity just to briefly outline, in my language, the nature of the significance of this moment here, so if you could bear with me.
[English translation not provided.]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just explained that the matter that is before us is Bill 6, the legalization of marijuana, and for some time, its use has been underground for a long time for our people. So, you know, the discussion at this point is historical. It's symbolic, and that even for me, I would never have imagined in my lifetime to see the legalization of marijuana.
Sentimental reflection aside, the reality is, Bill 6 was in response to the federal legislation to legalize marijuana. In fact, it placed us in a process that was already predetermined for us. It was inevitable for us to support the legalization of marijuana, especially up here in the Northwest Territories.
From an Indigenous perspective, another layer has been put upon our communities. As we travelled throughout the communities, and I was a member of the joint committee that travelled in the southern communities, part of our communications in the communities was to almost, perhaps, assure communities, yes, legalization is coming, but there is a trigger that you could use, and that is through a plebiscite. A lot of our people, because of their experience with alcohol and the many tragic things that come along with it through our history, especially the leaders who have experienced it firsthand, did not support the idea of legalization.
What we told them was, they could say no to marijuana; that you could ban it; and that you could prohibit the use of marijuana in your communities through a plebiscite. In a sense, what we heard through our communities is that you could have a level of control. What Bill 6 proposes to do is to have the government control the sales and distribution of marijuana or cannabis versus the free market retail system where we let the market decide. I understand that.
Now, being part of this committee, we are giving the draft Bill 6 as it was, an opportunity to review it, and then to consult. Therefore, we travelled into our communities. When we went into communities, we listened. We listened to what people had to say.
When we did that report, those recommendations reflected what we believe people were telling us in the communities. From my understanding, there was a lot of social concerns, a lot of fears about the legalization of marijuana. Here we are talking about Bill 6, and it's rather interesting that, on one hand, we are given a sense of control to our communities. Yes, you could have a plebiscite. Bill 6 is inevitable, and marijuana will become legalized. At the same time, we are trying to at least look at the idea of a free market economy system. It is rather interesting that we have two parallels or two extremes, but my sense from communities is that it gives them a sense of control, and I believe this legislation proposes to do.
I'm in a position to say, as I've said, I could never imagine in my lifetime that I would ever say these words, that I support the legalization of cannabis or marijuana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Would the Minister like to respond?
Yes, thank you. I thank Mr. Nadli for his comments and concerns, which we've carefully noted. We realize that legalization and what comes with it is of great concern throughout the Northwest Territories. He mentioned early on that he was surprised to see its legalization. I'm surprised to see that it took so long. As I mentioned, the Le Dain Commission was some 45 years ago, and we've been talking about it ever since.
There is a discussion about free market and controlled market. I see our proposal is somewhat in the middle, government controlled to some degree. Those who own the liquor stores, I understand, are private entrepreneurs, so there is kind of a mixed system in here that we are contemplating. I feel that as we start out on this journey, this is a reasonable system that we proposed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on our list, we have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to share and take not too much time on what's in front of us today. I recall decades ago in some job sites where joking manners were made to legalizing marijuana. As my colleagues Mr. Nadli and Mr. O'Reilly said, I couldn't imagine I would be in a position to say that I support legalization; however, it's a bill that is pretty much forced upon us. We are complying with somebody else's direction. I know all the colleagues in the House are passionate of their decision-making process to do what is right for the people they serve, and for the people of the Northwest Territories.
Given the work of committee, the staff, the research, puts us here today at the moment of voting on Bill 6. It is in today's society where it makes us so much different compared to years ago. Some items or issues can be said that we are really modernizing society, and by comparison, the cannabis drug is really weak in comparison to what is already out there. I was very surprised in going to some of the communities that I never thought I would ever go during our northern consultation, only to find out that cannabis is all over our Northwest Territories in our 33 communities, and in far more greater volumes than I ever could imagine.
Moving forward, I'm hoping our government would reserve the necessary resources that we were denied. The limitations of the resources we received only allowed us to go to 16 communities in a short period of time, on a piece of legislation that we were learning as we went along on engagements of what we heard, and that was the intent of the trip, on what we heard. What we heard helped us develop the report.
Moving forward, all of the communities, including the young students, were recommending to us that we do come back in a forum of education, public consultation and give them the materials to help educate society on what's being legally imposed on them and also take into account the difficulties that we are going to have with policing and enforcing Bill 6. So those are my few words on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Would the Minister like to respond?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I thank Mr. McNeely for his comments, and I know committees as well as the government were under a lot of time pressure on this, but, between the officials that we sent around and the two committees, I believe we did visit most of the communities, not all but most of the communities, containing a pretty high percentage of the overall population. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on our list we have Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't reiterate too much of what everybody said. I think we've all heard it so much in this last hour that we need to look at other things.
Being from a small community perspective, like my colleagues Mr. Nadli and Mr. McNeely, drugs have been in the small communities for quite some time. I remember growing up and going to school in Inuvik when there was a lot of cocaine coming down through the Dempster Highway. With the new highway to Tuktoyaktuk, we are going to kind of see some of that, you know. Every time there's an opportunity for a highway or other avenues to travel, all good and all bad will come with it.
Sometimes we focus maybe on one facet of something. There might be, like, seven or eight, you know, as much as a diamond. How many facets in a diamond? We need to look at all of those. As well, you know, I'm looking at this paper here, and we're talking about this bill, and I'm wondering why didn't we talk about all these other bills that are on this brown sheet of paper while we were travelling with this marijuana legislation, as well? Because, you know, everything that happens within that bill will have an effect, you know, social assistance, social services, on health, education, all of those aspects of it. I think we need to look more broadly.
You know, some of the meetings we've had recently, there has been a lot of disagreement. We're not all the same, you know. Everybody has a right to agree or a right to disagree. I think what we need to look at is, okay, a way forward and championing that rather than, "Oh, my God, this is an emergency," knowing this was coming from the federal government. We didn't really have a choice. We had a chance to react, and this is how we're reacting to it? I think we need to take a look around and see how we could make this better as we move ahead.
I think there's a good opportunity for communities to start to look at their bylaws. Some communities do not even have bylaw officers in the community, and some communities have two police officers. You know, we're taking a little bit of burden off the police officers so they can actually do some positive policing in the communities, like going out fishing or hunting, get a softball game, go coach hockey or baseball, whatever it may be. We need to look at those aspects of this and say, "You know what, there are a lot of good things out of this as well as the concerns." Everybody has concerns.
I know I do for my region. I was up in my region recently, and I actually saw some marijuana, you know, delivered in the mail, and this has been going on for some time. It's not a shock. You know what, it's either that or bring it in legally. You know, we look at communities that are going to possibly make a prohibition to not have marijuana in their communities. We need to educate them, as well, to use this as an education tool to educate them that, you know, the black market is still going to be there; it's still going to thrive. Community members will still be paying the high amount that they may pay for marijuana, you know, rather than a community that does not have it.
For the communities that have liquor stores, you know what, I am from a small community. In the past, I remember ordering from, you know, the Inuvik liquor store to get some wine into Paulatuk. It's going to be like that with marijuana, as well, too. It's nothing. Nobody is reinventing the wheel. What people are trying to do is refine it so that it's actually workable, so it has, you know, less impact of harm in the communities.
We did one tour of the communities. You know, we've seen them once, but imagine living there and seeing that on a daily basis, what the impacts are of illegal marijuana. The communities that have totally banned alcohol, it's still there, and, you know, in a sense you hide that aspect of all of the illegal things that are going on. You can either ignore it, or you can say, "Hey, you know, we need to do something about this and educate people the right way."
There is a good opportunity to move forward, the best way forward. Together, whether we agree or all disagree, it's going to move forward just the way it needs to. I believe that, you know, there's a six-month term where it gives the government time to, I wouldn't say make corrections because we don't know what mistakes will be made yet. It will give the government time to take responsibility for the shortfalls.
Actually, some of the people who may fall through the cracks on this, who may rely on it too much, it gives an opportunity to work with them, and I think the government has the best opportunity to do that. The government has a lot of resources that they can fall back on, not like some private entrepreneurs. If we give this to private businesses right away, it may be, in a sense, stepping off, starting off, on the wrong foot, and I think we need to look at that and look at all the implications if we do something like that and what's next. You know, we need to maybe have seven or eight plans, and, you know, maybe this one, maybe the government has already looked through, all the professionals in the departments have looked through all this, and maybe that's the way forward, the best way forward, seeing how it's so rushed. You know, if we say that it's so rushed and we are not ready, do we expect to give an entrepreneur a licence tomorrow, saying, "Hey, we do not know, but go ahead and, you know, see what happens." That is kind of going in off of the deep end. I think we need to tread our way in slowly and work together on this.
You know, I look at social media, see the tweets even about myself, you know, voting on things like that. I'm, like, wow, we need to keep this in a professional manner and work forward together on this, not, you know, take jabs here and there. I think we need to all kind of work together on something like this, because this is something of significance to not just people of Yellowknife but people all over the Northwest Territories.
There are 33 communities in the territories that are looking at this, you know, and some people see it as an opportunity to do something good, and I think we need to, as well. A way forward, I think we're already halfway there right now, tonight, and it gives us time to look at it this summer and go back to our constituencies and how can we help. You know, there are also other governments to consider in the territory. The Government of the Northwest Territories is not the only government in the Northwest Territories. You know, there are a lot of Indigenous governments who take pride in what they do, and there are a lot of economic development arms of those Indigenous governments who could change their policies overnight, unlike the government, where it may take some time, so we need to rely on them, too. So, when we are developing things like this, we need to look at the businesses and the professions who've worked at that for, you know, years and years. We are not the professionals here, but we have a lot of resources that will direct us in the right way to make the best decisions.
That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Only to say that we fully realize that there are different opinions out there and there may be a difference in opinion overall between the larger and small communities. Doubtless, there will be some surprises and perhaps some unintended consequences of our legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Members, may I please remind you to have your devices on silent. It's getting a little distracting. That's the second time tonight. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will actually be brief, unlike the other 10 Members who said they would be brief and then went on. I have talked a lot about cannabis and this legislation. I am profoundly disappointed in what has been put forward. I know that we can't do everything perfectly. The Minister has stated that.
Perhaps I am just out of step with this government, because my priorities don't always line up with this government's priorities. As I was quoted by the Member for Yellowknife Centre, it is less than once in a generation that a prohibition is lifted. This is something we are going into for the first time. There will be mistakes, but we have to do everything we can to mitigate those mistakes.
I don't fault those people in the department working on it. I would have liked to see perhaps more resources put to it. The people who developed this policy and drafted this bill, maybe if they weren't up so many late hours because they actually had a few more people in their shop, it might be nice. Next time that something like this happens, maybe the departments can come to us and say, "We need a few more resources." As the Regular Members, perhaps we can give that to them.
With this bill, I see it is not guided by the future. It is guided by a fear, fear of the unknown. Instead of listening to the youth, because that is what I was really driven by was the youth, we had a lot of conversations with a lot of people on the road. There were two distinct thoughts. There was, "Let's do this right so that we don't go down the same path we did with alcohol, where there are bootleggers and people making a living off selling this product and there are not drug dealers selling fentanyl-laced cannabis. Let's do it properly." There was that school of thought.
Then there was the school of thought where, "We shouldn't do this at all. We should stick with the status quo, be as conservative as possible." That is what I see this legislation doing, being as conservative as possible, not moving forward, digging its heels in, and saying, "How can we keep things the same?"
I don't know. I am quite disappointed. I'll shut up now. As we go through, I will talk about each of these clauses. Like some of the other Members have said, too, if you had told me when I was younger that I would be sitting here working on legislation to legalize cannabis, I wouldn't have believed you. It is pretty mind-blowing. I just wish we could have done more. We didn't have enough time, but I think we could have done better if we tried and if we collaborated a little more. I will end my comments there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I suppose in some ways it would have been better if we had had more time, but we didn't. The federal government proceeded. Frankly, we didn't have all that much time. I guess we are fortunate that there is likely to be a slight delay in the legalization from July 1st, which would have really put in a difficult situation if legalization was a month and a day away. Instead, it looks like it is going to be, as I understand it, mid-August, so we have been given a little more time. I suppose it is not enough.
I think the bill is a good compromise and will serve us well in the future. It may need changes. As I mentioned earlier, there may be some unintended consequences that we haven't foreseen. That is always possible, but laws can be changed. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on the list, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before, I spoke as one of the co-chairs of the joint committee. Now, I will speak as a Regular Member and a representative for the constituents of Kam Lake. We often challenge the attitudes and policy direction of this government from this side of the House. The challenge can seem critical on days, but it comes from a good place. That place is: be ambitious. Be willing to embrace change when change is needed.
I have heard the Minister say in reply to nearly everyone's opening comments, "We didn't have a lot of time. We didn't have a lot of time." We had two years that we knew this was coming. Certainly, we didn't have the federal legislation to review, but there are jurisdictions in the United States. There is Alaska, which is a similar northern context; different economy, certainly. There are areas we could have looked at. There has been much said about Colorado's experience. There have been news reports about how their early cannabis implementation failed to achieve the public policy objectives.
There were steps we could have taken. Instead, the Minister and Cabinet delayed for as long as possible. They delayed until the federal legislation happened and waited until the committee had scant weeks to work together to improve the bill. From the degree of amendment to the bill, it clearly needed improvement. There were technical errors that needed to be addressed, which isn't uncommon, but just shows how rushed the entire process felt.
There was no need for this. I firmly believe that we could have embraced this as an opportunity to make our community safer, to generate some economic activity, to set zero tolerance for impaired drivers, to keep our kids safer than they have been in the history of us dealing with cannabis as a controlled substance. Those are good things, having an optimistic and ambitious attitude and a creative response.
Instead, for retail, we have the Liquor Commission, which is not a perfect system. Members have risen on the floor to criticize the liquor system consistently. Members of the public, members of my riding criticize the Liquor Commission, that it needs reform. Yet we are going to adopt the exact same structure to do cannabis now? I mean, we are not even talking about a system that works. We are talking about a system that needs reform that will now have another problem attached to it.
Our neighbours in the Yukon have a supply agreement. They have a price for cannabis. We can't get a straight answer on that. In the last budget round, when we knew cannabis was coming in months, we couldn't get a costed plan. Not a penny in that budget for cannabis that was clear and announced and gave the public confidence that the government was dealing with this responsibly.
Again, we have a massive bill dropped on us that has put many Members in an uncomfortable position to deal with something they weren't prepared for. We had two years to prepare for this. We could have applied a creative solution to get the best results possible. As my honourable friend from Hay River North has said, this is a government that is fundamentally conservative in its approach to policies.
I spoke to people who went to the cannabis engagement and spoke to public servants who were at the event representing the Department of Finance and said we are going to do the Liquor Commission. How is that a fair consultation that is taking into account what people have to say, if the government has prejudged the outcomes?
Then when we hit the road and speak to members of the community. They have no idea what is in the bill. It becomes our responsibility as Regular Members to provide public information for a massive societal shift. I don't accept the Minister's comments that we didn't have enough time.
He speaks of compromise. As other Members have said, we are all trying to work together and work on behalf of our people for the good of the Northwest Territories. Who is the Minister compromising with? Why do there necessarily have to be two sides of this House at this moment, when we could both be accepting a bill or a cannabis regime that has the best results for everyone intended?
The government has accepted the vast majority of the committee's amendments, the committee's improvements, to the bill. I acknowledge that, and thank the Minister and his colleagues for doing so and concurring with those so we have a more complete bill.
There are two motions that are outstanding that are of significant concern. They are backed up by the evidence. They are backed up by the consultations. They are backed up by what Members agree is the best way forward, and we can't do it because we are afraid of it, because we don't know how it is going to work, because we are not sure of the market.
I say we need to be bold. I say we need to be ambitious. I say we need to make this a transformative piece of legislation that is going to help keep our communities safe and help achieve the results that prohibition has never given Northerners and never given Canadians. This is an opportunity. We shouldn't be shying away or saying this was imposed on us. The policy direction came from Ottawa, but this is an opportunity for us to fix a problem in society with comprehensive legislation that has vision and can transform our society. That is what I am here to do, Mr. Chair. I hope that by the end of the proceedings today, we will have accomplished that. Thank you.
