Thank you, Ms. McLaughlin. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just need some certainty specific to the Sahtu region. So just to that, I guess that was my only concerning question and I'll listen to other Members, if they should have other inquiries as well. I thank the Member for the response. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Yakeleya. I’d like to thank the hospitality of the people of the Sahtu for sharing their time, their stories, their struggle and thoughts on Bill 24.

Furthermore, I wish to thank the Sahtu community leaders, band councils, chiefs and elders for your wisdom and guidance.

Bill 24 is simplistic in design, yet opens up the bigger issue of social responsibility when it comes to alcohol and its devastating effects. We heard from the sponsor of the bill that the Sahtu is unique, but does the Sahtu not suffer from the same issues as the rest of the NWT or northern Canada, for that matter, when it comes to alcohol abuse, bootlegging and social problems?

So aside from uniqueness and what was also tabled in committee’s report in the House, what else did we hear from the Sahtu people? We heard this would create too many demands from other NWT jurisdictions. So, does this bill allow for the call for similar mirror legislation, allowing plebiscite restrictions in places such as Inuvik, Hay River, Fort Simpson, Yellowknife and Fort Smith? In a non-legal sense, it does set up for some interesting precedent. Mathematically, this is almost impossible to duplicate.

We heard that the bill was unconstitutional for the committee to consider. So we asked ourselves, does the amendment offend the constitutional right to vote in the Sahtu? Does it discriminate on the basis of place of origin and what about the voting

rights of Norman Wells residents? Are their rights offended?

It is clear that Bill 24 affects the voting rights of any given Sahtu community in relation to liquor restrictions. So the question of dilution of voting rights, is this discrimination with respect to goods, services, accommodation or facilities? According to our legislative legal counsel, it is doubtful this would constitute discrimination pursuant to the Human Rights Act. To constitute such discrimination, Bill 24 would have to deny or discriminate a Sahtu community of such which is available to the public. Again, Bill 24 does not deny citizens of any Sahtu community to have a liquor store or to buy or sell alcohol.

So do we have a constitutional infringement with Bill 24? I can assure that committee had their constitutional Charter glasses on during the whole process of the bill. So no, I do not feel this bill touts constitutional infringement.

To recap Bill 24, are we setting up territorial precedent? Maybe, but as I said earlier, very difficult to reproduce mathematically. Are we creating inequalities under the Minister’s authority? Yes, but from a very narrow point of view. Are we creating inequalities across the NWT? No, as Charter acts and land claims all differ in design already. Finally, if we’re doing all three of these, is this good public policy moving forward? Well, I’m going to let the historians judge this question in the years to come.

So, committee, I ask you to put aside what has just been proven and battle tested from a constitutional sense so I can share my final thoughts.

Alcohol is the root of all evil and it is clear we need a rational, sobering perspective to all this. Admittedly, almost all of our issues of alcohol abuse boil down to personal responsibility and community support. In the end, this bill sets the premise of doing what is right for your neighbour, and it is clear from the people of the Sahtu they need our help.

Therefore, and in light of a regional town being restricted by a potential future plebiscite, this should not prohibit the people of Norman Wells or any township from helping their neighbours in their time of need. The sponsor of this private member’s bill, Mr. Yakeleya, has taken this serious issue head-on, with the potential of a political price to pay for his actions. I commend him and he undoubtedly has my respect moving forward.

Therefore, it is in the context of human compassion, legislative stewardship and the hope of a free vote by all Members here today that you will stand beside Mr. Yakeleya and the people of Sahtu and vote in favour of this bill. Mr. Yakeleya, you have my full support.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. General comments. Next, I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the Member for Sahtu and his proposed legislation. I think the first relevant fact for me is we’re talking about the sale of a government-controlled substance. So this is already sort of beyond the course of normal business. So we are used to specific regulations and guidance being put forward on controlled substances like liquor. I thought it was very interesting. I was not on the committee and I did not travel, but I’ve been listening closely to the committee and found it interesting that they found considerable merit in both the pros and cons to the proposed legislation. So, no, this has not been an easy road or a clear road necessarily, at least in the beginning, and I appreciate the change and the Member’s flexibility to accommodate that change in ensuring that the decision was made by communities that represent at least 50 percent of the residents of the Sahtu.

We’ve been pointing our fingers very strongly at the lifting of restrictions at the liquor store in Norman Wells as the cause of this situation. But I’m very concerned, because we’ve seen this sort of phenomenon in lots of regions of the Northwest Territories where there has been no change in restrictions, but we’ve had large industry come in with large resources and people’s disposable income soared and resulted in the same phenomenon; and the RCMP, I think, can attest to that, as could our Minister of Social Programs. I’ve spoken to the Member for Sahtu and he agrees that it’s almost certainly… Perhaps I could pose that as a question. Would you agree that this is part and parcel of the equation here, that it’s a combination of the lifting of restrictions as well as the additional disposable income that people have as a result of the exceptional levels of development activity, the oil money in the region? Maybe I could start there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bromley, for the question. When we start to have the oil and gas coming to the Sahtu communities and start to explore for the oil and gas, that could be beneficial to the North and the Sahtu people. The comments by our leadership were starting to look around at the lifting of the liquor sales at the Norman Wells liquor store and we’re starting to see that, with the additional work and the amount of work that’s in the Sahtu, and the lifting has certainly contributed to the amount of liquor being purchased at the Norman Wells liquor store, even to the point where people who were also on income support were also starting to buy a lot more liquor than one needs to be, because certainly, the

amount that they’re purchasing is not for personal consumption. We do see a correlation there with the funds coming in, the activity and the lifting of the sales at the Norman Wells liquor store.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Anything further, Mr. Bromley?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to Mr. Yakeleya. Of course, we know the results are vastly increased consumption leading to increases in crime and, ultimately, if this continues, and we’re talking about orders of magnitude increases in consumption here and family violence and addictions and so on, and I think that’s fundamentally the motivating factors that are causing people in the Sahtu to speak out so clearly here. I guess I’ve been convinced. I’ve listened closely to concerns about improperly curtailing businesses involved in the sale of liquor and I’m convinced by our legal advisors that this is not a discriminatory action or an unconstitutional action. I’m also convinced that the business that does exist is viable and known to be viable under restrictions, not that this will immediately result in a restriction, but it could, and so that needs to be considered, and I believe I’m okay with the situation there.

The government has raised the concern that this bill introduces inequality of communities across the Northwest Territories. Currently, every community has a voice for themselves. This changes it now to where a region can sort of dictate to a community what the situation will be, and I’m convinced this is proper, but it is a departure, as the government notices, and so it introduces a level of inequality across the communities. I’m convinced here by the people of the Sahtu and their MLA, in this case, that this exception is a legitimate exception, because it’s a fairly dire situation, but, I guess, in the end I’m left with a question about the complexity of the situation if another community – and I’ve been assured this is unlikely in the near future – wanted a liquor store and so on, then the complexity of it starts to increase and become confusing to voters.

On that basis, and given some of the departures here from the normal treatment of equality across communities, I’m hoping there’s some commitment to monitor the impacts and evaluate this proposed legislation should it pass here today. I’m hoping that’s in place. I’d welcome any comments from the Member for Sahtu on that. With that, I’ll conclude my general comments. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I didn’t hear a specific question there. I’ll think we’ll just take that as general comments and move on to Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, for all his hard work in bringing this bill to our committee and to the Assembly here, and I definitely appreciate the situation that’s in the Sahtu

right now and, obviously, befitting that we had a whole question period on drug and alcohol problems throughout the North. I understand the issue before us.

I’d also like to thank the members of the Gov Ops who have taken this to the public in the area of the Sahtu and got the general information from those people and their concerns.

I guess I do have some issues with this bill on several levels. The first area that I have a concern with is I’m not really supportive of restrictions and their effectiveness in curbing alcoholism and drinking problems in communities. I believe in areas where they’ve had it in the past or currently there are still drinking problems and there are people carrying on and continue to have issues out there, and I understand this does not necessarily mean that there’s going to be a restriction placed in the Sahtu. It just gives them the potential to have that. But yet, they’re giving control, and if it ever happened, restrictions would be in place. I’m not a strong believer that those restrictions would be effective.

The other area of concern, obviously, coming from a regional centre, is that outside communities have control on activities that happen in a regional centre, and if we flipped the coin and regional centres wanted something controlled in a small community, we would probably be called bullies and it would be seen as an issue that the larger centre…David and Goliath type of concept. It begs the question and the precedent that if this is allowed to happen, that, you know, now we’re dealing with liquor, but it may be other issues within this government where the communities surrounding the regional centres say we want to be able to control what happens in the regional centres. Whether that has to do with Education, whether that has to do with Health, whether it has to do with any department in the GNWT, I feel that we’re setting a precedent in allowing this to happen.

We’ve discussed, and I know the Members have talked about sales going up, and I know we couldn’t prove why that was happening. Whether that was due to the fact that industry had come into the community, like some Members had talked about. The ability for someone that used to go to Yellowknife on a vacation and buy a case of whiskey for their own personal consumption now doesn’t have to do that. They can go to Norman Wells and do that.

The other concern that I have, and when we’re talking about prohibition, restrictions and that type of stuff, it’s been done in many areas before in history. It’s been going on for years, for decades, with very little positive results. I think by putting restrictions in place probably increases some of the criminal activity. I think it promotes bootlegging. If I live in a community where there are restrictions in

place and four of my friends want to sit around and have a case of beer, we are done the case of beer and we want to drink some more, we are restricted in what we can consume, so we would just go to a bootlegger and get that. It promotes that type of activity, I do believe.

Respectfully, to the people of the Sahtu and to the Member, I just feel that we, as a government, definitely need to support drug and alcohol issues in the Sahtu and other regions, but I don’t think this bill is an effective way of curbing the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to congratulate MLA Yakeleya for bringing forward this private member’s bill. He is responding to the concerns of his constituents and it’s a good thing to do, and I know how much work is involved in getting to this point. I’d also like to thank the residents of all the Sahtu communities for their hospitality, for their stories and the sharing that they did with us as we travelled through their communities at the public hearings.

Alcohol, addictions, drugs, all of that, this is a really difficult issue. We talked about that earlier today. And it’s not a difficult issue only in the Sahtu, it’s a difficult issue everywhere in the NWT. But we heard from so many residents how much it is impacting them in their Sahtu communities and I cannot disagree with the residents who told us many things. They told us the liquor consumption had increased, as referenced by some of the other Members. They told us that the amount of the liquor coming into their communities had increased. They told us that bootlegging was much more prevalent. They told us that they see more and more drinking in their communities. They told us that calls to the RCMP had increased considerably. That wasn’t in just one community; that was pretty much the message in every community and we visited four out of the five communities.

We heard that these problems with alcohol, the drinking, that these were not new problems. They admitted that these were problems that were there before, but we heard a number of people tell us that the rationing system which was in place before had given them some relief to a certain extent from the abuse of alcohol. Now that things were wide open, many of them felt that it had a huge impact on the alcohol consumption and on the addictions issues that they were facing.

I can find no fault with the legislation itself. It simply is asking for an opportunity for more people to vote on a plebiscite, if there is a plebiscite, if the Minister determines that a plebiscite should be held. That’s a big if. I think my main concern is that I don’t know that this bill is the solution to the problem at hand and the problem that Mr. Yakeleya is trying to address. It’s addiction, it’s alcohol consumption, it’s

the need for programs in all of the communities and this is one way, I guess, or one small step in trying to address that problem.

Many people in the communities expressed concern for their youth. They felt that the situation had changed and that more and more of their youth are drinking and that they are drinking more. One person actually referenced youth as being poisoned by alcohol, because they were drinking so much that they were putting themselves into a situation where they were being alcohol poisoned. We heard time and time again that people struggle with alcohol and addictions and that they want help and that they need help to address their problem.

We weren’t just discussing the bill in these communities. We were discussing the social issues, the health issues. It was wide-ranging. It was interesting to me that in every meeting, at least one person who was there got up and said that the community has to offer help itself. So in every community there was at least one person who recognized that and stated that the people needed to get better and they need to take some action.

We’ve also heard – this is from somebody who does not support the bill – that most Sahtu communities have restrictions and that it is a responsibility of the community to make those restrictions, put them in place and then to abide by them. That was an opinion of somebody who submitted to the committee.

Many people talked about the need for stiffer penalties and that’s reflected in the committee’s recommendations in our report. The committee’s recommendations also reflect the cries for programs that we heard. We had so many people who spoke to us and said we need programs to help us get our people better, to get our people healthy. They don’t have them. They say that they have applied, spoken to people, asking for help and that they get no response.

The interesting thing to me and I was just reviewing the committee recommendations that we determined. As a member of the committee, it was a really valuable experience, but it’s interesting to me that of all our 15 recommendations, not one of them is a recommendation to change the act. They are all recommendations to various government departments to do things like make on-the-land addictions treatment available in communities, that the Department of Justice establish an effective mechanism for anonymous reporting of bootleggers and bootlegging. They all reference the problems that we heard and how committee determined the government could help these people with their issues.

It has been pointed out already, but I will say it as well, that the Finance Minister has rightly pointed out that the bill will establish different powers for the Minister in different places in the territory. That’s a

concern expressed by the government, but I don’t think it is that big a concern. It isn’t a big concern for me. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I think it certainly can be worked around. I don’t think we’re going to see people take advantage of that difference and different powers in different places.

We also heard, and I think MLA Dolynny referenced, that some people felt that this bill would make things unconstitutional and it had to do with voting and so on. Committee considered that several times and determined that we do not feel that if this bill passes, it will create a situation where somebody is losing their rights and that it’s an unconstitutional situation.

For me, I had to ask myself is this bill the right solution to the Sahtu problem. I’m not sure. I think it may be a part of the solution, but I think there are other things that we can do and I think that’s reflected in our recommendations. Why don’t we restrict sales at the point of sale, at the liquor stores in Norman Wells, Inuvik and Yellowknife? Because it’s not just Norman Wells where this liquor is coming from. It’s coming in from Yellowknife; it’s coming in from Inuvik. We heard that as well.

Why can we not come down harder on bootleggers? Why not reinstate alcohol in committees? Require permits? The community would issue a permit for people to bring liquor in. They could charge a small amount of money. They can use that money towards local programs. There are a lot of possibilities.

I ask myself, as well, is this bill going to solve the woes and the problems of the Sahtu communities and I have to say no, it’s not going to. But this bill and the requests from the residents in the Sahtu is an ask and a cry for help and I think we need to provide the support that these residents are asking for. It’s a start. It’s not a big step, but it is a small step.

Lastly, I think I just want to mention one thing that is also in the report. The last paragraph states: “The committee understands the Finance Minister’s decision that under circumstances specific to this bill, Cabinet will not support it. The committee therefore respectfully requests that Cabinet abstain, or allow a free vote of its Members.” I just want to reinforce that. I believe that and I would ask that that would happen. I would ask Cabinet members to either abstain or have a free vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. General comments. Next I have Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I begin, I would like to commend the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, for his commitment to his constituents and taking a big step standing up for his people and what the people

believe in and what they do need. I would like to thank my colleagues from the Government Operations committee as well as staff that travelled with us on this important matter. One other thank you to the people of the Sahtu region for their warm welcomes, their great hospitality and, as Ms. Bisaro mentioned, their great storytelling.

The Sahtu region is a region that, in all my travels, is one that is very spiritual, probably the most spiritual region that I have travelled to in the Northwest Territories. Upon my visit and the consultations that we took on this tour, I heard and felt the spirit of individuals, families and communities that were broken and hurt. As Ms. Bisaro said, crying for help and the need for help.

You’ve heard some comments here today about increased sales, increased restrictions would benefit the bootleggers, but what we heard from some of these people is that bootleggers had an opportunity to actually purchase more alcohol now, instead of finding other people to purchase it for them. So they can go in and buy as much alcohol as they want. What we heard was stories of them loading them up on sleds and heading out of town. They said they buy hard alcohol because hard alcohol doesn’t freeze.

What we also heard was the history and that in the ‘70s, the Sahtu Secretariat, the regional council, made a motion to put in these restrictions and the rationing system, and the whole region voted on that. The new vote that went on in Norman Wells did not allow the communities to have that say, and that was taken away from them.

We heard from leaders, business groups, residents, elders, youth and the RCMP. We heard from very strong people with strong voices. For somebody to speak up in a community setting in a meeting, that takes a lot of guts and a lot of courage, and for them to speak up on such an issue, I think that sheds light to the issue at hand.

Things that we heard, as I mentioned, there was an increase in sales, increase in consumption, but we also heard that there was an increase in deaths in the region and deaths in our youth. When we’re going through the consultations, we did have a discussion and said the government doesn’t have all the answers and this has to be done in partnership. It’s been mentioned here before that it has to be done through personal choice and communities have to jump on board, as well, should this go through and how we work together.

Just to touch on the bootlegging side of this, we did hear from the RCMP specifically that they have been getting more calls in the small communities; they’ve been having more people in jail cells. They’ve seen an increase in that as well as hearing more bootlegging going on in the communities. We heard residents talking about the amount of people

they see walking in town intoxicated. They’ve seen an increase in numbers they haven’t seen before.

The bill itself, you know, it’s not going to solve all the problems, but it is a good start. From that, we can start focusing on the other needs in that region, but also other regions throughout the Northwest Territories that focus on treatment, education and prevention. I guess what was most shocking to me was in one of the communities where I spoke to a couple of RCMP officers I had known that had worked in the community of Inuvik. They said this bill needs to go through because it’s really affecting the lives of people in the community and they’ve seen an increase in that time in speaking to the chief and especially the leadership was very important.

I guess in my last meeting in Norman Wells is where we did get a lot of both sides of the story. It’s always good to hear. We did hear a lot from the small communities who were all in support of this bill. I wouldn’t say Norman Wells was half and half; I would say there were more people in support of the bill than against it. Some things mentioned was the bill that took the restrictions off was the allowance of some transient people that come up to Norman Wells and only stay there for a year or two and then leave. They make decisions for people that live there their whole lives and it affects their whole lives. Actually, one of the people who were at the meeting said that if the amount of people that came to the voting meetings when the restrictions were lifted were more than there was when we were talking about the bill, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this right now because the vote was so close. If you had more people out to the discussion of the bill, it probably would have been voted down.

One group that really touched me when they spoke was the youth. The youth were very candid. They were very open, telling us all the issues they’ve seen. We had youth tell us how they are able to access more alcohol now because adults who buy for them, who wouldn’t want to use up all their restrictions for the day, can actually buy more booze now and, as such, buy for the youth. The youth were telling us that. As a result, there were some very strong and heartfelt stories from the youth as well.

Madam Chair, I know there is development and activity going on in the Norman Wells region. As I stated earlier in one of my statements, if we don’t have healthy people in those communities – and from this tour, there’s a lot of hurting people there – we’re not going to have people to fill those jobs for the development and we’re going to have to continue to bring people up from down south.

The committee listened very well during this tour. The report was read the other day and there were 15 strong recommendations that go outside of just

the restrictions. We’re looking at social issues that need to be addressed.

I just want to leave you with this one quote that one of the elders had left us with when we were leaving one of the communities. “Hope you make a good decision for us.” I’m here because I listened to a lot of residents of the Sahtu region. As I said, it’s probably the most spiritual region I’ve ever travelled to. Upon the travel to the communities, I could feel the broken spirits that were there and those spirits need to be uplifted again. They need to be rendered and they need the help. I’m one to sit here and say I will help the Member on this bill as well as assist the residents of the Sahtu, so they can have a healthy society again. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Next I have Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, in bringing this private member’s bill forward. I spoke to a lot of residents in the Sahtu from a variety of the communities there. They, too, have told me about the increase in consumption, the increase in the cases with social services and also the policing. Through our committee business, we have seen an increase of over $2 million in the Sahtu region. That’s a clear indicator that there’s a lot more happening in that region. Some say it might be just because of development, but nonetheless, there’s a $2 million increase of alcohol that’s been bought in that region. It’s affecting the people, as you’ve heard very clearly from my colleagues from the committee.

One of our colleagues mentioned that he didn’t want to see this as a rippling affect. Madam Chair, I would like to see this as a rippling affect. People in the Beaufort-Delta also brought this same issue up, I believe four or five years ago, when I was in a different role in a leadership meeting. They wanted to see the same sort of thing happen in the Inuvik region. Because there’s no restriction on alcohol sales, that really affects the surrounding communities and I’ve seen it firsthand.

I’d really like to thank the Member for bringing this forward. I spoke to a number of leaders, also, that said something needs to be done in Norman Wells to help the communities. With that said, Madam Chair, I will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. I’d like to briefly return to Mr. Bromley. I think he had a question for Mr. Yakeleya that didn’t get addressed, so I’d like to go back to Mr. Bromley, please.

Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I ended with the query about follow-up with this legislation. Given that it is stepping out in a new way in how we run plebiscites across the Northwest Territories and it’s a departure, has the Member

considered any follow-up, working with the appropriate authorities for follow-up and monitoring and evaluation to see how this works and be prepared to consider amendments if deemed to be appropriate? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I respond to Mr. Bromley’s questions, I want to thank the Members for speaking to the bill. Certainly I look forward to continued support as we go through this process.

The question to Mr. Bromley’s question on the point of evaluation on monitoring, certainly, Mr. Bromley, this is quite unique. It’s doing something that is bold and imaginative for a solution. Not maybe the perfect solution the way I’d like to see it, as legislators doing something that’s right for the people who spoke to us in the Sahtu in the communities. Even though we went to four of the communities, we had an opportunity to hear from all five of the Sahtu communities. I certainly would entertain, for sure, the process of evaluating and monitoring and seeing how it’s going, is it doing what it’s stated it would do. It’s a long process, however, something that needs to be considered as part of the regulations. That is something I would support.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Anything further, Mr. Bromley?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a bold and innovative approach to a situation here. I also agree with a lot of the comments I’ve heard, that we need a more comprehensive solution that deals with the health of people. So that this becomes a moot issue, but as we heard earlier today in the House, that is a huge and challenging and long-term undertaking. Whereas, this is a pretty quick piece of action that can help provide some alleviation while we do that more comprehensive work. So on that basis, I also will be supporting the bill. Mahsi.