Thank you, Madam Chair. As we sit in this House, we are legislators who pass bills and make laws of general application and the Liquor Act is one of those bills. The other thing we do in this Legislature, as one of our guiding principles, is we’ve worked hard over the years to make sure that communities, at their request, have the maximum amount of authority as possible. This particular Liquor Act, which was put in place in 2008 after years of work, reflects where the main concern at the time, which we heard and responded to, was the request for the communities to have the ability to control liquor in their respective communities by a majority vote.

As legislators, as we’ve looked at bills like the Wildlife Act, or any other bill that has been years in the making, budget bills, we do our best to make sure that they reflect to the largest extent possible the wishes of Northerners as a territory. The concern we have is that by amendments such as this, there will be implications and consequences and precedents. If we enact this bill as presented, then there are two things. We are committed to working and giving communities the maximum amount of authority possible. For example, we’re working with Deline on their self-government agreement-in-principle and supporting the right that they espouse to have, which is the ability for community control over liquor in their area. The other issue is the signal is going to be clear that as a government we are now prepared to look at laws of general application and possibly start moving towards a patchwork of enforcement and application.

It may not be germane to the issue in the Sahtu, but it is germane to us as legislators. As we pass laws in a careful, measured, thorough way, trying to do what’s best for all Northerners, we have to contemplate that. We have to be very cognizant of that, conscious of that fact and what are the implications of our actions.

No one debates or disagrees with the issue and the challenges of alcohol and the need for us to continue to invest our resources to deal with the alcohol issues. Mr. Yakeleya and I, in his 10 years as MLA, have had numerous discussions about alcohol, the ravages, the incredible social cost that alcohol abuse places on our territory and we always come to the same agreement at the end of the day, that the ideal is for us as a territory and us as Northerners to be able to make the right personal choices. As Mr. Yakeleya and I have come to realize over our years, the personal choice is the only thing that is going to really change what happens with a person and their abuse of alcohol. We can help and we try to do that in many ways, but this bill, as people have pointed out, is not a silver bullet, it’s not a panacea; it’s an attempt to respond in a political way to a specific issue in the Sahtu. But if you overlay the broader concerns for ourselves as legislators and the need to ensure that we continue to govern and pass bills of general application, it is the position of the government that we can’t support this bill. It has nothing and is not a reflection on Mr. Yakeleya. He should be commended for working so hard on it to reflect the concerns of his people. Of course, this is a bill of the government and we will be voting as a government on this bill for that very fact. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Next for general comments I have Mr. Nadli and then return to Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank, first of all, the sponsor of this legislation. I think it’s commendable that Mr. Yakeleya is working with his people and I respect him for that.

I’d also like to thank the people of the Sahtu that showed their Sahtu spirit in welcoming us into their community. What was fairly prominent, of course, and very obvious, was the personal testimony that we heard from communities in terms of the plight in dealing with alcohol.

This legislation simply is asking for help and the communities are asking for help. We heard from leaders, elders, parents and youth. There is a problem. There is a problem and we need to help out.

The other point that I wanted to make is we have to balance our business responsibility with social responsibility. Unfortunately, at this point, this government has its relationship with the Liquor Commission and also the liquor outlets and it’s a challenge to try to balance those two. At the same time, I think if we call for development and we do in fact welcome development, it’s going to be based on ensuring that we have really well-thought-out and developed social impacts meditative measures to monitor development so problems of this nature do not get out of hand where we can’t control it anymore. I don’t think that’s the aim of resource development.

I think this legislation sits across this map for a future framework for decision-making. I say that because it was just recently that First Nations people were allowed to drink alcohol and vote. In this light, communities are asking to be involved with the public decision-making process. If they are indeed part of this public government, those communities should have a say. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. I’ll ask Mr. Dolynny if he can take the chair. I’d like to make some general comments. I think we’ve heard from everybody now. Thank you.

Okay, committee. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting this legislation as brought forward by Mr. Yakeleya. I’ve listened to the general comments and the debate with great interest. I’d like to thank Mr. Yakeleya for responding to the requests for his support on this issue and bringing it here to the Legislative Assembly.

To Mr. Miltenberger’s comment that we can’t have a patchwork of legislation as legislators, might I suggest that as we devolve more authority from our government through self-government agreements and other things, there is necessarily going to be a patchwork, and it is not unprecedented, and to me this is a form of devolution of authority to a region

who is asking for it. When we look at things like self-government agreements for communities or for regions or for groups, we look at giving them control over issues, potentially, like this, so if this legislation being enacted gives the people of the Sahtu that authority to control this substance within their region, it gives them more control, more authority, I think it’s a good thing.

To be honest with you, when it comes to alcohol, I know that maybe this is not, as someone said, the panacea that is going to address all the problems and all the issues. Agreed. But if I can make somebody go one mile further, have to take one more turn in the road, one more step to make it more difficult, I will.

You know, alcohol is, as we said in our theme day today, having a terrible impact on our people and ironically we want to sit here and say, well, it’s people’s personal choice, but if we can help people with that personal choice, let’s do it. Anything that can help deter it.

There are lots of people who are listening to this who can say I can drink alcohol. It doesn’t affect me. It doesn’t affect my life negatively. If people have a problem, well, let’s just come up with more programs for the government to help the people who’ve got a problem. And good for you, you know. Good for whoever can drink and not have it affect them negatively.

I made a choice a long time ago not to drink, just on principle alone, because I saw the devastation of it, and if that in any way sends any message to anybody that you can have a happy and fulfilled life without having to turn to alcohol… You know, people drink in excess when they’re sad, when they’re happy, when they’re celebrating, when there’s a sports game on television. I mean, like, any excuse. I hate alcohol. I hate the effects of alcohol. I’ve watched it for the 40 years mostly. You know, I grew up in a little town and I didn’t see a lot as a child growing up, but what I saw when I came to the North made me make a decision not to drink. Even in business, my husband and I made a pact when we started off in business 35 years ago. We will never sell alcohol, just because we’re trying to make a point. We’re trying to draw a line in the sand and say look, people don’t need this.

I’m not trying to sound holier than thou. I’m just telling you that I hate it and I hate to see what it does to people. If you can manage it, well, good for you, but if people want to have a say in how this particular substance is controlled in their communities and their region, I say take it on, run with it. See if they can, through more autonomy, more say, bring about a positive impact.

Will people bring it from somewhere else? Perhaps. Will people load it in their sleds and haul it into the communities? Good. I hope they go off the trail. I wouldn’t care if they did, with their boxes and cases

of liquor. I’m sorry; I wouldn’t care. I just deplore it. I have seen too much devastation. Ironically, we as a government have so much to do with alcohol, you know. I mean, we buy it from the suppliers, we bring it in, we warehouse it, we ship it, we stock it, we give it out on consignment. Now, people aren’t going to want to hear this, but a lot of money that we give to support people who are on government assistance, I have to tell you, we finance a lot of alcohol consumption in the Northwest Territories too.

This seems like a big circle to me. But, you know, it’s not politically correct to talk about it because people have a personal choice. Hey, it’s their personal choice. We’re not allowed to criticize. It doesn’t matter how far down it takes the community or takes a family or takes an individual.

I support this, and thank you to the Member for bringing it forward. I’ll support any motion or any legislation or any action which curbs the consumption of alcohol in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. With this, it concludes our general comments. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been both a difficult and challenging issue that many of our Members have been dealing with as of late. I want to thank, first off, Mr. Yakeleya for his passion and his commitment to the people of the Sahtu. He has challenged this hill with great fervency and zeal. I can tell you that this has not been, hey, let’s do this, and what do you guys think. He’s brought Bill 24 over with a lot of work, and I can tell you, when he first started talking about this a few years ago, saying we have to do something, it started with we have to do something. Then it went into a lot of work behind and a lot of communications and a lot of knocking on doors. This bill did not show up here on our desks before this Legislature overnight. I’m trying to really stress to the people that this just didn’t come overnight. It came over with great passion, a lot of work, a lot of commitment and a lot of energy. I applaud the Member for his commitment and his passion for the job he is doing.

Let us not forget why we do this job. Many days I wish we could make everyone happy. To some of that, I’d like to talk about that. Are we going to make everyone happy by doing this? Sometimes we ask ourselves, you know, how do we do this. Well, it wasn’t, you know, yesterday that I was asking about trying to solve one problem in reference to the power rates about, well, we engineer the power rates. In other words, we make decisions to do things. Now, I don’t agree with everything they did, but what I’m saying here is we have the power to do things we want to do with the types of outcomes and objectives.

At the same time, alcohol consumption, control, management and monitoring is a decision we can make. We can engineer our own rules and laws. In other words, we have control of them, so we can decide what type of outcome we’re striving for.

I happen to be a big fan of Stephen Covey, and I often quote him, and he’s got some really simple ones. He says, “Begin with the end in mind.” So what are we trying to do here? We heard the Minister or at least someone talk about personal choices. Yes, but we’re trying to buy people a healthy window of time to ensure that they are healthy. That’s a focus on the end. How do we get there? Bill 24 could be the right vehicle. I don’t know if it’s the vehicle to get us there, but it could be the right vehicle.

I’ve been using my political career in a manner of saying, you know what, let’s break from the status quo. Yes, I try to bring a lot of ideas to the Assembly, and I certainly welcome a lot of ideas as well. Why would I see standing in the way of Bill 24 as a good thing? I can’t imagine a single reason why.

When I struggled with this, I kept thinking to myself, as other Members have, and it needs to be said, which is what are we doing to the town of Norman Wells in the context of autonomy. Are we stepping into an area when we should be bolstering their autonomy and their authority and allowing them to make their decisions? I really struggled with that.

But at the same time, I also have to balance the problem of what happens to the surrounding communities. Do I vote to take away the autonomy from one area by extending that authority and relationship to a larger area? I struggled with this many a day, and I talked to a number of people, and actually, once again, I want to thank Mr. Yakeleya for not putting unfair pressure on any Member. He talked about why he needed this, but he never made anyone feel as if we were strong-armed, not that that’s allowed, but strong-armed to make a decision. He brought it to us to say this is the case that we need to make, this is the case I’m trying to communicate with you and this will help our people.

The other thing I struggled with is thinking of the Sahtu as a whole region. There will come a day that they will govern themselves as a whole region and in their own relationship that they’ll be working with each other. Are we ahead of the curve by asking ourselves, are we giving them the authority as a group rather than an individual? What will this do to Norman Wells? What will this do to the region? By the region, I mean Fort Good Hope, Tulita, Deline and Colville. I hope I didn’t miss anybody. It wasn’t intended that way if I did. The reality here, and we often think this ourselves, is we must weigh and balance the needs of many versus the needs of few. I keep thinking: What’s the worst that could

happen? A little less alcohol could be sold if further restrictions were put back. What is the worst that could happen if we left them wide open? Well, as a matter of fact, I don’t have to imagine; we are already starting to see those results.

I should also temper, sort of, some of my remarks now on to the communities. This isn’t Norman Wells’ fault alone. I did tell Mr. Yakeleya I would be speaking this way, as well, because I feel that is a challenging decision that involves everyone, this smuggling of alcohol into communities. But I’m not blind to the fact that – and I can’t say I’ve witnessed this, but I’ve heard this repeatedly – many of the people bringing alcohol into the communities are related to the people in those communities, whether they’re their brothers, their sons, their daughters, their uncles, their aunts, their grandmothers. But yet I’m also well aware of the challenge to deal with it with their own family. Could they call the police on their own family? I’m well aware of that. That’s a constant juxtaposition that these families would find themselves in. I’m not sure they are doing anything right. I don’t want to get them in trouble. It’s a constant balance of struggle going back and forth. Sometimes what they’re doing is the best thing they feel they can do for their loved ones is not doing that, and yet we get some of the results we have.

I would support anything that puts roadblocks in front of addictions. If the public wasn’t listening today, I’m sure that the message is slowly getting out there that this side of the House, the Members themselves at large have great concern with addictions and finding roadblocks for addictions in the sense of stopping people’s consumption of it and trying to help people with their troubles.

If it’s not clear by now, I have chosen with great consideration to vote in favour of the bill. I consider that the rights of the many must outweigh the rights of the few. As I said earlier, as I talked about the engineering of power rates, sometimes we meddle in areas for the good, although maybe on the micro level people are concerned why we’re in there.

As I said, I will be supporting the bill and I will be supporting it proudly, because I feel we must do something that outweighs the problems we are having now. I’m not sure that this will solve everything, but I feel that without trying something bold and new, we have solved nothing. To that, I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. This concludes it. I believe everyone had a chance to speak in general comments. I will allow the sponsor of the bill to comment back on the general comments. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for giving your thoughts, your opinions, your analysis to this bill that is being asked by the Sahtu people. I have been asked by the Sahtu people as a legislator – as Mr.

Miltenberger put it so eloquently, as legislators we do the unpopular, bold initiatives to represent your people on whatever issues. When you have your people pushing you for a resolution or solution on an issue such as alcohol, the impacts in the Sahtu region, then you listen to them and you work on their behalf.

I am here before you because we have chosen to do the right thing. Today is the right thing to give the people in the Sahtu to be part of a regional decision on the single most devastating product in our lives since it was brought into our large and small communities, and that is alcohol, the abuse of alcohol. We heard in our communities, when we went to visit them and heard them, that that’s killing our people. We are legislators here to provide maybe not a silver bullet or to get around some of the legalities and complications of regulations and work, but to do something bold and take action. It may not be a perfect solution, and I agree with the Members, but it is something we are doing. We are doing something.

We are talking about a regional structure. We don’t know how or when that regional structure will be put into force, but we are giving the people hope. As legislators, that is what we do. We give people hope. Be part of the solution. We do make a difference when we as legislators go and ask for their vote and say we will work on your behalf. Government is not always right. Sometimes they make errors and that is okay because we can correct them. We are in the position.

In the Sahtu we have wrestled with this issue for some time, with various results. It is success or no success. In the ‘70s the leaders got together and said, Minister, you have the power to put restrictions on the sale of liquor in the Sahtu. He did it. Today is different. The Minister still has that power and the Minister is not using that power.

I want to tell my colleagues, for the ones that are supporting me, thank you from the bottom of my heart. This bill here is raising many issues and confronts many issues on rights and the role as a legislator. This is who you are speaking for on behalf of the people.

I want to say to the people in the Sahtu, what you talked to us about, what you said to us, and I as your MLA, now I know what it means to go to bat for you and work for you. I didn’t think this was going to be a lot of work until I started talking to the drafters and the lawyers and the legislators such as yourself, and that’s a lot of work. You have people who are saying that’s infringing on rights or it’s not okay. I didn’t think that it was going to be so difficult if you are talking about saving lives and evolving as a region such as we are doing now with devolution.

I want to say that I look forward for this legislation to go through, do the right thing. I’m asking Members to listen to the people in the Sahtu. Have faith in the

people. I’m quite disappointed that Cabinet will not be supporting this bill and have a free vote on this. I do not yet see their logic. That speaks louder than what we are doing as legislators.

I thank the people in the Sahtu and I thank the Members of the Assembly for the comments you provided on Bill 24. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Does committee agree there are no further general comments? Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chair, I’d ask for a recorded vote.

We’re doing a clause-by-clause review. Does committee agree?

Does committee agree that there are no further general comments?

Okay, we can proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill.

Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, Clause 1.

---Clause 1 through 4 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole.

Does committee agree that Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, is ready for third reading?

---Bill 24 as a whole approved for third reading

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya, and thank you to your witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses from the Chamber.

Committee, do you agree that this concludes consideration of Committee Report 7-17(4), Report on the Review of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act?

What is the wish of the committee? Ms. Bisaro.