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.