This is page numbers 4103 - 4182 of the Hansard for the 18th Assembly, 3rd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was going.

Topics

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Cory Vanthuyne

Cory Vanthuyne Yellowknife North

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I understand that this motion was developed by committee as a response to the government's stated policy decision to refrain from granting vendors' rights to any vendor other than liquor store vendors for at least two years. The fact that the Minister declined to concur with the amendment demonstrates to me the degree to which the GNWT wants to ensure their authority to implement their policy to see cannabis sold only through liquor stores for at least two years. As I noted yesterday, Mr. Chair, the trenches will be dug after two years, and there will be no getting out.

For me, this begs the question why. As I suggested, again, in my remarks yesterday, I believe the government is determined to reserve cannabis revenue for its own coffers to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing in Bill 6 right now that requires the Minister to give fair consideration to private citizens who want to become legal cannabis vendors. We must simply trust the government when they say that they will consider opening the sales model to private vendors. The committee's motion would ensure that private vendors are given fair consideration right from the start.

We have heard the government say that they don't anticipate cannabis revenues to be all that significant. In fact, in this year's budget address, the Minister of Finance said, "Early estimates indicate that revenues from cannabis for the GNWT will be modest and that there are likely to be some increased expenditure pressures."

Contrast that with the following observation from the chief economist at CIBC World Markets who said, "If businesses are allowed to set-up cannabis shops and compete in the same way that other retailers do, Canadians could be buying as much as $10 billion worth of marijuana products a year." By that estimate, the Canadian cannabis market is expected to bring in $1 billion more per year than the $9 billion in beer sales that occur annually in Canada right now. That says a lot. At least one industry analyst predicts that the Canadian cannabis market is more likely to be closer to $20 billion a year in sales.

My point, Mr. Chair, is that by its insistence on selling cannabis through liquor stories, the GNWT is denying NWT retailers who are not already liquor vendors the opportunity to enter this market at the outset, with the opportunity to learn and grow alongside liquor vendors who choose to sell cannabis and to reap a fair share of the profits. Mr. Chair, I will be supporting the committee's motion because it will, not prevent the GNWT from selling cannabis through liquor stores, but it will ensure that other entrepreneurs who meet the criteria and requirements set out in regulations will be given fair consideration in their applications to become cannabis vendors. I believe strongly in the entrepreneurial spirit of this territory and the capabilities of northern businesspeople, and I believe they can rise to meet whatever conditions are set by the GNWT. Thank you, Mr. Chair

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Next, we have Mr. Thompson.

Shane Thompson

Shane Thompson Nahendeh

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair the committee developed this motion as a way to address the government's position that they would only grant cannabis vendor licences to liquor store operators for the first two years after legalization. My constituents want to see cannabis stores in communities that don't have liquor stores. The only way to make sure this happens is to put a requirement in the act that obligates the Minister to consider all eligible vendor applications, not just those from liquor store operations. That's what this motion would do. It gives the Minister the discretion to not approve an application from someone who is not qualified or who does not meet the established criteria, but it prevents the government from giving a monopoly to liquor stores.

A lot has been said about whether the Minister will have to develop the criteria now or in six months or in two years. This is a red herring. The government will develop the regulations as soon as possible if they have to. What matters is, once legalization takes place, without committee's motion, the government can develop the regulations, but they'll have absolutely no obligation to consider applications from anyone other than the liquor store owners.

Mr. Chair, in my riding that I represent, Acho Dene First Nations has already sent a letter to the government and asked to put a store in their community. Why should they, you ask? They're two and a half hours away from BC. If we're going to go with this model, what the government's going to do, they're not going to mail order. They're not going to drive to Fort Simpson. They're going to drive to BC. They're going to access the cannabis when they want to. The community wants to have this opportunity to put it in their community, so the revenue stays in the north. Unfortunately, if we continue this action that the government has proposed in this bill, we're not going to see that.

The Minister of Justice talks about online. Great, we're going to have online. Well you know what? If they're going to go online, and they have access the credit cards or the ability to do online, they're not going to go to the liquor store in Hay River or Fort Simpson, or the Liquor Commission, wherever that is going to go based out of. They are going to go online down south. So we're going to not only miss the taxation and the revenue, it's going to go down south. We see that right now with opportunities to buy stuff online. You can do it now. So without having this opportunity, we're missing that.

This here is coming from the communities. It's not my decision, because I'm not in the business. I'm here to represent the people from Nahendeh, and this is what they've asked. Mr. Chair, they want business opportunities that could come with cannabis stores. They want to be given a chance. Right now, in the Deh Cho, or in Nahendeh, there's limited opportunity. We don't have the opportunities that Fort Smith, Hay River, Inuvik, Yellowknife have. The economy is not great. Here was an opportunity to, one, develop a business; and two, put people to work.

It's unfortunate some people on Cabinet side don't understand that. Some don't, some laugh about it, and it irritates me. Some people over there are serious about it, they understand that, they've been in the small communities, but it's about putting people to work, and if we don't do that, I know you like income support, well, I'd love to see you guys live on it. People want that opportunity to work, and I think this is an opportunity to do that. For that reason, I'm supporting this motion and calling on my colleagues who worked with me to develop it to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Daniel McNeely

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Next, we have Mr. Beaulieu.

Tom Beaulieu

Tom Beaulieu Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I will be supporting committee's motion in this area. I have my reasons for supporting it: it is to be able to have a safe supply of cannabis to all residents of the Northwest Territories, not to only some residents of the Northwest Territories. I can assure Cabinet that, if this motion is not passed, you will be supporting the illegal trade of marijuana in small communities. There is no reason in the world, there's no reason in the world for an individual to fly all the way to a liquor store to be able to buy, and they can't even pick up marijuana for their friends, because of the limit that is there. So everybody has to fly in to a community to get their own. What is going to be the option? The option is going to be to either buy it online or buy illegally. So for the people who don't have Visas out there, and I've talked many times, when you have 40 per cent employment rates, you don't have many Visas flying around in the community, Mr. Chair, and if they were to get a Visa, if they were to be lucky enough to have a job and get a Visa and want to smoke legal marijuana, they will buy it from somewhere else. They'll order it places where they're not selling it for $10 a gram, because that's what the market, that's what the government sets the price at, and everybody else is going to set the price at the market rate. The illegal drug dealers are going to have a better sense of what the market is than the government.

We have to let the people start up vendors in the communities so they could stay within the market and they could provide legal pot to people, safe pot to people. There's a feeling that there are going to be stores, pot stores popping up all over the community. That ain't gonna happen. There's not enough business for that. Not going to happen. And if it does, at least they'll be paying taxes back to the government coffers instead of putting illegal money in their pocket.

If we approve what the government is saying, we are supporting the illegal trade of pot. There's no question about it. I think everybody knows that, but for some reason or another people are bound to the fact that they think that there's going to be pot stores popping up all over, and everybody's going to start smoking marijuana. That's not necessarily going to happen. That ain't gonna happen. There's a reason that it's being restricted to only certain communities; there's a reason that it's only going in to liquor stores. If it's not what the honourable colleague from Yellowknife North said, that the government wants to keep all of the tax dollars for themselves, then it must be what? I just can't understand, unless the other reason is a lack of understanding of what the lay of the land is as far as this product goes in the Northwest Territories. It is unbelievable. It ain't gonna happen. It we don't pass this committee, then we are supporting the illegal trade of marijuana. In the whole North, you will hear that, and that's how it's going to be set up. Everybody's going to know that this government is passing a bill that supports the illegal trade of marijuana by restricting it to only certain communities and leaving the small communities, the 27 other communities that we went out and heard from, that said that this is what we want to see. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next on the list, we have Mr. Simpson.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't like this motion. I find it too prescriptive, but I am in support of it because our alternative is subservience to what I believe is a wrong-headed policy position for all of the reasons mentioned by Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Vanthuyne, and I have nothing further to say. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next on the list we have Mr. Nadli.

Michael Nadli

Michael Nadli Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not support this motion because the communities that I represent did not explicitly tell me to take this position. As I stated in the outset, speaking on this Bill 6, is people want a level of control. They want a level of control or government has control, and therefore position the communities to have control. I disagree with the comments that were made earlier. We can't really predict and crystal-ball this and place hypothetical situations over our heads and predict what may happen. We don't know that, but I do know that I support Bill 6 because it's predicated on the idea of stomping out the illegal drug trade. That's the initial intention and spirit of Bill 6. I understand the federal government is proposing this legal framework because, in the end, they have primacy in terms of enforcing the control and sales of marijuana and cannabis, and, therefore, I don't support this motion. Mahsi.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Next on the list, we have Mr. Sebert.

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of concerns about the proposed motion, and, if it fails, there may be an opportunity to accomplish its objectives without the negatives associated with the particular language. We do understand the motivation to see other private retail options to be open sooner rather than later. I think we need to be very careful not to suggest that there's a huge market waiting to be captured with lucrative returns to be had. The prices must be set in a way that can displace the illegal market.

Everyone should appreciate that it is going to be a challenging operating environment for legitimate enterprises. Unlike organized crime and other existing dealers, legitimate businesses must pay staff, payroll, income and property taxes, provide training, pay insurance, pay WSCC premiums, get business licences, comply with zoning requirements, pay rent and utilities. Cannabis retailers will also have to compete with legitimate mail-order and online options that may indeed turn out to be the preferred retail option of most consumers. Convenience and, frankly, anonymity are attractive features of mail order.

All cannabis retailers in the NWT will also have to buy their products through the Liquor Commission, acting as the wholesaler, to ensure that there is a safe, well-regulated, and approved supply. To meet our objectives, this has to be a regulated product that is treated differently than other products commonly available through many retail channels. I would stress again that the majority of respondents to the GNWT's extensive public engagement expressed a preference for the liquor store model to be used in retail for cannabis. As I mentioned earlier when I was quoting the figures, it was not a huge majority by any means, but that seemed to be the preferred option. I still think this makes sense, to provide a safe and professional retail option on legalization day and to provide for an expanded marketplace shortly thereafter.

To that point, I would emphasize that the bill already provides for other options, and, if this motion does not pass and another is brought, we would make that explicitly clear and we would establish full and fair criteria that any potential cannabis retailer would have to plan for. What is being proposed through this motion as written is the elimination of ministerial discretion to consider important questions about how, when, and where these additional retail options would proceed. Approval of cannabis stores should not be a mere rubber-stamp, bureaucratic formality. This is an important concern. Ministerial discretion is always subject to review for abuse of discretion, but, where broad policy issues require careful consideration, Ministers must be free to act based on the best interests of the residents they serve and on the conceptions of the public good. This is how the system is supposed to work.

As noted above, we do support prescribing criteria for cannabis stores, which should include, to list but a few, their location; where are the new stores proposed to be established; what they can sell; should they be able to sell toys, candy, cannabis; does the community support the addition of new stores; what are the security requirements for the new store for staff, customers, and security of the stock; what are the inspection requirements for the new store; what should the hours of operation for the stores be; what should the training requirements for staff be. These questions quickly come to mind. Undoubtedly, there are many other considerations that should be applied, and it is our intention to do the work necessary and as quickly as possible to address those considerations.

Residents want cannabis stores to be well regulated, with matters related to health and safety and community support to be fully considered. I fear that this motion would undo the key element of having opportunity for the public interest to be carefully considered with each application for a new store. The explicit "unless the Minister provides a reasonable justification requirement," when read together with the rest of the provisions, would not preserve the necessary ability of the Minster to fully exercise his discretion in the public interest. At least, it is far from clear that it would.

This language is not used in any other legislation that I am aware of and certainly not anywhere in territorial legislation, or the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions. It would be unfortunate, for example, if the Minister was forced to designate a vendor over the legitimate concerns of the community.

Mr. Chairperson, our thinking has evolved. We accept the objectives of the motion but not the constraint placed upon Ministerial discretion. If this motion does not pass, we will support an alternative version that achieves the same ends while recognizing Canadian principles of executive government.

To conclude, when we went out and were seeking the views of the public, there were many different options that the public looked at and the liquor store model seemed to receive significant support. Cabinet will be voting against this motion, thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Sebert. Next we have Mr. O'Reilly.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have a confession that I want to start with. At first, I supported the liquor retail model, but I changed my mind based on the input that we've heard. I'm going to come at this very differently than some of my colleagues, but I do agree and support the work of the committee on this. Although I did hear that there were some individuals who supported or wanted private retail stores, I do think that the claims of economic opportunities are probably greater than they are really going to turn out to be, especially around retail. There may be some opportunities around production, but I am worried about raising unrealistic expectations around economic opportunities, particularly with regard to retail.

I want to go and just look at what is in the existing bill. The only conditions that are being placed on who can become a vendor are that you can't be a minor, you can only sell cannabis that is authorized by the federal government, you have to keep records, there may be some additional things required by regulation, and you probably have to enter an agreement with the Minister.

Those were the only conditions in the existing bill, but the Minister may designate a person to act as a vendor in a particular community. That's total and unfettered discretion. The Minister can decide whoever can become a vendor, total and unfettered discretion, and I don't think that's appropriate. What we are left with is trying to deal with a policy decision through a legal amendment, and it is kind of a difficult position to be put in.

I want to point out that the amendment that we are talking about here, there's nothing in this amendment that prevents sale of cannabis through the liquor retail system. The government can continue to do that. If that's what the policy direction is, this amendment will still allow that to happen. What it would require is that the government actually develop a set of regulations, to set out in a clear and transparent manner what the prescribed criteria are. It would force the government's hand to actually set those out in a clear and transparent fashion, set up a process for doing that, and presumably, it would be a public process where the development of those regulations would take place. Anybody who meets those prescribed conditions would get a licence to sell. They could be the sorts of things that the Minister of Justice talks about, whether it's security or lack of a criminal record or whatever. All of those things could be laid out in a clear and transparent fashion, and I think that's what this government should be doing right now.

As I said, I come at this a lot differently. I am very concerned about the Minister having total and unfettered discretion, and that's what this is about. It's about ministerial authority and discretion. To me, that is a key issue here, and I'm not prepared to give the Minister that much authority over something that's brand new. Absolutely not. I'm going to be voting in favour of this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next on our list, we have Mr. McNeely.

Daniel McNeely

Daniel McNeely Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we said right from the start that, as we proceed forward in this very unknown market, we're probably not going to get it right. Right now, I think we can all agree in this room here that cannabis is not being sold here. It's being brought in to all 33 communities from other sources outside, south of the 60th parallel, or west or east or north, but there is no supply point here.

Assuming that we didn't have the system of alcohol sales, would we have designated these six communities as cannabis suppliers? Probably not. It's the system that we have and the tools that we have on delivering programs and services.

Having said that, I can't see myself, in consultation with some people in my region and listening to them as well, supporting this motion. As much as I respect everybody's opinion, I hope everybody would respect mine. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Nakimayak.

Herbert Nakimayak

Herbert Nakimayak Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't be long. Earlier, in the opening comments, I mentioned that I wouldn't support this, and I think all of us who sit here, our time up in this Assembly is done in 2019. I think we need to look beyond that.

Earlier, I mentioned that, if the government is in control, it is something that could be controlled by the government and the government can take responsibility for. If we look at something like this that is being proposed, it would become the wild, wild west, and I don't think that's the right way to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Question has been called. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour?

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4164

Deputy Clerk Of The House Ms. Kay

The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Yellowknife North.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4164

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

All those opposed?

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4164

Deputy Clerk Of The House Ms. Kay

The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Sahtu.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4164

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote: seven in favour, nine opposed, zero abstentions.

---Defeated

Clause 5. Mr. Simpson.