Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to support the motion moved by my honourable friend, the Member from Yellowknife Centre. One of the curious things about the government's plan to co-locate the sale of alcohol and cannabis came to me in a particularly clear way when the Cannabis Talk Kit was mailed out to every household in the Northwest Territories, which is a commendable effort, and I think it's a good idea to get that information out there.
In that talk kit, there's a one-page sheet on top of it, and there's a small box on that sheet that says, "Don't drink alcohol and smoke cannabis at the same time." Yet, the government is proposing to sell both those substances in the same place. So, if anyone in the Northwest Territories, maybe in six months that will change, but when legalization date rolls around, they will have to go to a liquor store to get cannabis, so I hope they read their one-page talk kit sheets and understand not to consume both substances at the same time.
This motion flies in the face of the federal task force and the Collin Report and the evidence-based best practices developed. And yes, there may be a concern about retail space in smaller communities, yes, there may be a concern about the ability of vendors to modify their premises, but, if the government is really sold on this model, we should provide the resources to make those stores work or make other stores work or to open cannabis-only stores.
This is not something that, you know, we read once in a report and decided to put forward. This was brought up during our public engagements, as well, and people know first-hand the devastating effects of alcohol on their communities. In fact, the hesitation around legalizing cannabis largely stems from the catastrophic experience of alcohol coming into the small communities. So to imagine that we are going to have one-stop shops for cannabis and liquor, it doesn't seem to meet the test of good public policy and good public health policy.
I really hope that we hear from the Minister on this and why this is necessary because my suspicion is, again, this motion was not consented to during the committee review, because it would put financial strain on liquor vendors and imperil the success of the government's proposed cannabis monopoly. I think that's why this is here. When we're putting the success of the government's monopoly over the importance of public health outcomes and harm reduction, I think we really need to think about what we're trying to achieve here.
This motion, again, is an evidence-based motion designed for harm reduction and designed to promote public health and conforms to the best medical evidence we have about harm reduction and how to properly manage the substances in our society. So I will be supporting this, Mr. Chair, and I hope my colleagues will as well because this isn't a Liquor Commission or a retail model debate. This is a public health debate. It is a harm-reduction debate. We need to pass this motion. We need to do this for the sake of harm-reduction in our communities. Thank you.