Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The overwhelming majority of submissions supported Bill 24 and, indeed, a return to restricted sales at the Norman Wells liquor outlet.

Of course, the latter is not the issue at hand, which is solely how a plebiscite may be requested.

In all the small communities, people pointed out that bootlegging has increased since restrictions on sales were lifted in Norman Wells. Bootlegging is predominantly in hard liquor, much of it in small “mickey” bottles, which reportedly sell for $85 each in Tulita. Two RCMP officers attended the hearing in that community. One confirmed that calls for service were up since restrictions were lifted in Norman Wells.

Bootlegging is against the law but difficult to control. Police are not able to intercept it all. Alcohol is smuggled into communities by plane, boat, road and snowmobile. Bootlegging was cited as a serious problem in every community, including Norman Wells.

Changes proposed in Bill 24 are not considered to be “the solution” that will stop bootlegging in any community. Rather, there was consistent opinion that the provisions of Bill 24 would help reduce bootlegging.

People in every community spoke passionately about the impact of alcohol abuse, which include many deaths and hair-raising close calls. People spoke of living in fear, of police being unable to respond quickly to complaints, and of the tactics bootleggers use to avoid being caught.

In Fort Good Hope, elder Gabriel Kochon spoke of the deaths of his son and nephew. “Today,” he said, “there are children 8 years old [who are] drinking.”

The committee heard time and again that children and elders are suffering the most.

Opinion on Bill 24 was more divided in Norman Wells, but the majority of speakers supported it, including several young people.

Nevertheless, Bill 24 was strongly opposed by the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce, the contractor who runs the liquor outlet on behalf of the NWT Liquor Commission, and several other individuals.

Opponents of the bill consider that it interferes in a business, sets up a regime unique to the Sahtu region, and that involvement in plebiscites by other communities is unfair to residents of Norman Wells and will not stop rampant alcohol abuse. The Chamber of Commerce labeled the bill “unconstitutional.”

The committee considered this objection but does not accept its validity. The committee carefully considered applicable human rights legislation in the Northwest Territories as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee does not believe that the bill denies residents any good, service or accommodation on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination, or that it

otherwise constitutes unlawful discrimination without a bona fide and reasonable justification. Further, the committee notes that the Northwest Territories Act grants the Legislative Assembly the authority to legislate intoxicants in the Northwest Territories.

Some of the arguments against the bill were echoed by the Minister of Finance. In a letter to the committee on September 26th , he stated that he

and his Cabinet colleagues will not support the bill. The Minister cited his desire for consistency of plebiscite policy across the Northwest Territories.

For clarity, the Liquor Act mandates the Finance Minister to regulate sales of alcohol. The NWT Liquor Commission, which contracts and supplies all liquor stores in the territory, also operates under the authority of the Minister of Finance.

Standing committee members were impressed by the submissions they received in every community, and found considerable merit in the arguments both for and against Bill 24.

The committee agrees that fundamental democratic principles must be upheld. In this case, that means a request for a plebiscite should come from communities comprising more than half the population of the Sahtu. An amendment to this effect was made during the public hearing in Yellowknife on October 16, 2013, with the consent of MLA Yakeleya, Bill 24’s sponsor.

However, the will of the people, as expressed in four lengthy public hearings, was loud and clear in support of Bill 24. What committee members heard was in fact a cry for help, which brings us to some important matters well beyond the scope of the bill.

I’d like to pass the report on to my colleague Ms. Bisaro.