Louis Sebert

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like much of our legislation, what we have before us is a compromise worked out with Members in this Chamber.

It is quite right that we were put under pressure by the federal government when they announced that they were going to move ahead on their promise made during the election to change the criminalization of cannabis. It was an election promise, but I think we were a little surprised when it came forward as early as it did.

This did put pressures on this jurisdiction, and in fact, all jurisdictions, to respond and bring forth legislation that dealt with the areas...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development and the Standing Committee on Government Operations for their review of this bill and for the constructive feedback they have provided. A number of motions were made in committee, and I am pleased that the bill has improved as a result.

The development of Bill 6 required significant interdepartmental collaboration and has benefited from feedback from the public, Indigenous governments...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the legitimate concerns that have led to the bringing forth of this motion. There are concerns about heavy use of cannabis in this age group, I think that harm can best be reduced by public education. No other jurisdiction has set an age limit above 19. Ours is, of course, 19. Generally, jurisdictions have based their age on the same age as liquor. I also don't think that this would be particularly effective. This two-tiered system would be rather complicated, unique in Canada, as I said, and the harm we wish to reduce, I think, can be best accomplished...

I certainly would be pleased to provide the Member opposite with an overview of the work we have done to this point. Hopefully, I can also provide some timelines. I think it is a very appropriate question. Thank you.

Reasonably agreeable approach, I will say, to the issue of designating vendors. Bill 6, as originally proposed, did allow for the designation of a range of vendors. It supported our plan for retail to initially occur through the Liquor Commission and the existing wellregulated liquor store regime, but there was no barrier to the designation of other vendors in the future, once the shape of the market became more evident, and there was an opportunity to provide, properly provide, for matters relating to security, health and safety, and determining community support. This motion does that. It...

We are currently looking at the possibility of transitioning the SMCC in Hay River to a therapeutic community model. We are spending time on this. Certainly, as I said before, we were all impressed when we went to Guthrie House. I think we should move ahead with our review to ascertain whether we can replicate that model in the Northwest Territories, because clearly, we have to start doing business in a different way.

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...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware as to whether the difference between tax- and non-tax-based communities is used in the Lands department. Perhaps the question would be more properly addressed to MACA, but I will check on that. Thank you.

There is, of course, no seniors' discount currently on territorial lands, but the department is looking at implementing similar provisions for residential leases on territorial lands as is currently available on Commissioner's lands. So it's a question of, really, bringing together the two types of leases, and they should be similar, at least, so we certainly are looking at the change which the Member opposite has proposed. Certainly, there have been increases, but, as I mentioned, there was a reduction in residential lease fees on Commissioner's land from 10 per cent to 5 per cent of assessed...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I had mentioned previously, these rates have not been changed for many years, and we wanted to have consistency with our leasing rates, so therefore these changes which the Member opposite is alluding to were felt to be reasonable. Costs have increased considerably over the last 15 or 20 years, and we thought that these increases, which are significant, are reasonable. Thank you.