Mandatory Review of Legislation

Not since the prohibition of alcohol was lifted in the majority of Canadian provinces in the 1920s has the country seen an initiative like the national legalization of cannabis. During our public engagement, many people voiced concerns about the "unknowns" associated with legalization. We expect that the GNWT and its federal/provincial/territorial counterparts will encounter issues and circumstances not fully anticipated when cannabis legislation was drafted.

At public hearings in Behchoko, Inuvik, and Tuktoyaktuk, some witnesses emphasized the need to revisit cannabis legislation after communities have firsthand experience of the results. The point was made that the government must respond promptly to public needs after enacting laws of this magnitude.

Motion 22 addressed this matter.

What We Did

To complete our review of Bill 6, we considered all public submissions and reviewed national best practices and other jurisdictions' proposed cannabis frameworks. In response, we developed 11 motions to amend the bill and eight broader recommendations to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Clause-by-Clause Review of Bill 6

The clause-by-clause review of Bill 6 was held on May 28, 2018, at the Legislative Assembly building in Yellowknife. The Committees moved 22 motions, including nine developed by the Department of Justice and two developed by the Member for Frame Lake.

Motion 1: To amend subsection 1(1) of Schedule A to define "consume"

The terms "consume," "smoke," and "use" are used throughout the bill, but the distinction between them may be unclear to the average reader. This motion provided clarity by establishing that "consume" includes, but is not exclusive to, both smoking and the consumption of cannabis products ("edibles").

Motion 2: To amend subsection 1(1) of Schedule A to delete the definition of "public place"

This motion was developed by the Department of Justice to correct a drafting error by deleting the definition for "public place" under the proposed Cannabis Products Act. Because this term is not used in the act, a definition was unnecessary.

Motion 3: To amend section 5 of Schedule A to revise the retail model for cannabis sales in the Northwest Territories

This motion ensured that private retailers, other than those operating liquor stores through consignment with the Liquor Commission, may be designated as cannabis vendors. The motion proposed to require the Minister of Finance to designate a cannabis vendor if the vendor met prescribed criteria. It also proposed that although cannabis vendors may also be liquor retailers, liquor retailer status will not be required.

This motion was carried. However, the Minister did not concur, so the bill was not amended.

Motion 4: To amend section 5 of Schedule A to prohibit co-location of cannabis and alcohol

This motion provided that where a cannabis store will be located in the same building as a liquor store, the two establishments must be entirely separate, including separate exterior doors. This reflects what we heard from Northerners, as well as national best practices.

This motion was carried. However, the Minister did not concur, so the bill was not amended.

Motions 5 and 6: To amend subsection 6(1) of Schedule A to clarify rules for community consultation prior to designating a cannabis vendor

Bill 6 initially proposed that where no cannabis store operated in a community, the Minister of Finance would be required to ascertain a community's views before designating a cannabis vendor. This motion expanded that requirement to ensure such notice will be given at any time a new cannabis vendor is considered. It also established that where the potential vendor would be the community's first, the Minister would be required to give notice of plebiscite rules, ensuring that sufficient time is available to hold a plebiscite as needed.

Motion 7: To amend section 11 of Schedule A to clarify limits on household possession of cannabis

This motion was developed by the Department of Justice to explicitly provide that the 30-gram possession limit does not apply to cannabis held in a person's private residence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the reading of this report to the Member for Frame Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.