The Government of Canada is legalizing cannabis. The provincial government must now develop a framework for the legal recreational consumption of cannabis.
Bill 30 is the legislation to control and license the newly legalized industry in British Columbia.
Critics on both sides have pushed on this legislation. It has either gone too far or not far enough. The approach is generally conservative with the province taking a firm stand. The program is modelled off the regulation for liquor distribution and consumption creating an administrative body for licensing and enforcement.
This legislation will most certainly be amended as we get an understanding of how these new rules are applied and once the province has an ability to analyze how effective it has been.
There are a few issues that I will be raising in committee stage primarily around craft cannabis, small scale producers accessing local markets, marginalization of non-property owners and how we are going to address the significant challenges at the British Columbia/Washington border.
[Transcript]
It’s an honour to stand today and speak to Bill 30, cannabis control act. It is a time, I think, in this country, as provinces across the country do work to comply with the federal decision to legalize the recreational consumption of cannabis….
I think for some in this country, it’s been a long time in coming. For others…. I think we’ve heard other perspectives of still quite a bit of concern around this particular product.
I would say that the feedback that I have received from…. People who’ve gone through the bills have said that there’s some tentative and general support for it, that the government has taken a fair approach to it. There are definitely some concerns to the approach that the provincial government is taking and certainly some concerns to the approach that the federal government is taking.
I think we see concerns on both sides, so that might suggest that the minister has done a good job in striking balance as we are creating a piece of legislation, a framework, from the ground up. You get criticism on both sides. Those that think you should go further are criticizing you, and those that don’t think you should go that far are also giving you criticism. Well, you’ve struck a nice balance right down the middle.
That has been the feedback that I’ve received so far. Of course, I’ve also received the feedback that if in fact we don’t make amendments to this bill right now, then the entire world is going to come down around us and that will be the end of things. Of course, I think that we know that that’s not entirely the case. I think that, as was suggested the other day, there are going to be quite a number of amendments and changes as we understand how this bill is put into action.
I think, from my perspective and certainly from some of the perspectives that I have heard, we are taking a rather conservative approach to this. We’re testing it out, we’ll make some changes as we learn, and we’re really responding. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, we’re responding to the approach that the federal government is taking, which is still yet to be passed. Yet we’ve got to get our action together and put our work in place for when the federal government does eventually pass their legislation through both Houses there in Ottawa.
To hear the member and the official opposition speak, B.C. Liberals’ approach to this is a much more conservative approach than you’re going to hear from this member or from our caucus with respect to the approach that we should be taking with respect to substances, substance abuse, addiction. Our approach is not a top-down, strict, government-command-and-control approach. That’s the approach that we’ve heard — that this legislation really doesn’t go far enough, and lots of concerns.
Certainly, we have a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of our citizens. That is primarily why we do take more of a harm-reduction approach to substance use, substance abuse, addition — more of a perspective that we need to have better education on the impact that these substances have. As well, we need a system and a government that provide support to citizens who are struggling with drug addiction and substance abuse.
In this country, we’ve seen — indeed, on this continent and around the world — that the war on drugs simply hasn’t worked. We’ve heard a perspective laid out here in the official opposition’s position that we need really strict and strong enforcement. That’s what we’ve had. We have right now a situation in which legalization of cannabis is largely being moved because those laws that are in place are being flouted by large percentages of the population.
In addition, we have a fentanyl crisis where folks are dying of fentanyl and drug overdoses. Yet we pretend, to a certain extent, in our society in modern times, that in fact the strict drug enforcement, command-and-control, top-down approach to this is working.
I heard this morning Heather Hobbs from AIDS Vancouver Island on the CBC when I was on my way into town. One of the things that she said very, very clearly — and she’s working with folks who are oftentimes right on the edge — is that criminalization is not working, and we need to get government to move and change the relationship which we have — criminalizing people for what is a medical issue, a health issue, an addictions issue. Criminalizing these folks does not help.
Our approach here is much more one of harm reduction, of treating medical issues as they arise. We’ve seen, for decades now, that as we’ve taken the war on drugs approach, we’ve seen that really fail.
We take a look at the bill. We’re given a general manager and a director. It’s very much modelled after the bill that we have for liquor distribution in our province. I think that there have been some changes within liquor distribution which we don’t see in this bill, and perhaps we will.
In fact, I hope we do see some amendments over time so that some of the opportunities that we see within liquor distribution and the production of liquor — whether it be beer or ciders or other products of alcohol that are created in our communities — and that people…. I mean, the craft industry, for example. I see an opportunity here for British Columbia.
We’re creating very much the same board. I’ve got some questions, when it comes up, to as the powers that are being given to the general manager and to the director, how they can use those powers, how it’s intended for them to use those powers.
I have some issues, when I read the bill, with this notion of cannabis in plain sight. People can be arrested or charged for having their….
Interjection.
A. Olsen:I spend very…. The minister, the Solicitor General….
Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.
A. Olsen:Anyway, I know that when I read the bill — without having to tweet or to read Twitter — there is a section called cannabis in plain sight. As we get to that bill, the Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister will be happy to know that I’m giving him forewarning. I’ll ask a question about it — and a thumb’s up down there, so thank you. And I believe very little I put on Twitter or read on Twitter.
One of the pieces of this bill that I will like to canvass more deeply in the committee stage is some of the issues that arise around non–private property owners. I think that this is going to be a challenge. Part of the challenge with cannabis, and it being different than alcohol — I don’t need to tell anybody this — is that you smoke one and you drink another. When you smoke one, you create a problem for people around you, whereas if you drink one, it’s really just a problem that you’re creating for yourself.
Nonetheless, there’s this whole interplay in this bill around: you can consume in public as long as it’s not in front of kids and around parks and around parks where — I can’t remember the exact language — kids frequent. So you can consume publicly, as if it were tobacco, but yet then you can’t be intoxicated publicly. That can be a problem.
I’m getting direction from the minister as we go.
Anyway, there’s this whole interchange. As well, if you have a place that you own that you can consume it, that’s fine. If you rent or… There are all sorts of layers to this which I think might marginalize part of our society. Let’s just simplify it. I’m concerned about how those that would be marginalized already in society might be further marginalized by this bill. We can take a look at that further as we get into committee stage.
Also, I think that around the craft market, the craft piece of this…. I think we’ve seen in British Columbia, especially with beer but also with spirits, that we have got incredibly creative and imaginative people who make wonderful products. Around the world where there has been greater levels of socialization for alcohol products than there is for cannabis…. I recognize, from some of the interplay in this House right now, that it’s going to take some time.
As we send our beers off to world championships, we celebrate them. We celebrate them on the morning news. We won nine of 14 awards — just British Columbia breweries, microbreweries — at the championships. We wake up in the morning, and we hear that on the radio. That’s something that is celebrated, the ingenuity of small business owners, the ability for them to…. They’re chemists. And the same goes for this industry as it matures in our province in a legal fashion.
I think what’s important is that as we have seen with alcohol production, there’s vertical integration there where you can produce and also have a place that you can sell. I was at my friend’s winery, and he’s got his wine there that he produces and he sells. Then there’s also a way for him to supply…. In a geographic area, there’s a way for him to supply local stores directly. The paperwork goes through the liquor distribution, but for small-end producers — small-scale producers, I should say — some of the rules have been amended and changed to allow for that.
As our laws and as we understand how those laws work and, actually, as we set them up…. That is something that I think needs caution, patience, always. We’re setting these laws up, and we see how they are executed. I think this is something, an opportunity for British Columbia as we go forward for the craft industry.
Finally, I think there are a couple more things that I’d like to point out. I did hear the minister the other day point out a significant challenge I think we’ve got right now with Washington state, British Columbia — state, province, federal government. The federal government in the United States runs that border. I think there’s going to be a lot of people who are going to be sufficiently confused by that, and it could cause a lot of problems.
What I hope is that both the state and the province and the federal government of Canada can figure it out with Washington — D. C., that is — because I think there are going to be people who are going to be confused. I don’t think they’re going to intend to break any laws, and that’s going to catch a lot of people.
Again, I think the goal here is to not criminalize people. Even those that say that the laws here go way too far…. The fact of the matter is that we are criminalizing far too many people with this product, and I think the goal here is to not criminalize people on both sides of the border. Yet the American federal government runs that border. I know that British Columbians, Canadians could get themselves into a lot of trouble at that border, the same as our American friends coming north. I think it is really important that we do sort that out.
Finally, I would say there is…. If I go back to the point where I was talking about private property owners and perhaps lack of a place for them to consume cannabis, one of the ways, of course…. Other provinces have done this. They have created cannabis lounges, or for alcohol products we call them pubs or public houses, a bar. I recognize the significant challenge of smoke indoors. I recognize that. But I think one of the ways we can get around and ensure there is a place for people to…. I mean, after all, this is a controlled substance, but they’re going to be allowed to participate and consume it recreationally. Perhaps we want to take a look at having cannabis lounges in some way, and perhaps that’s a further evolution of the law as we go forward.
I think, in general terms, we’re very supportive of the government taking this action. I think that the minister and the ministry and the drafters have done a good job in crafting a framework for us to work within. I hope that we can identify some challenges that come up and address them promptly as we go and evolve, as this industry in this province evolves.
There’s an opportunity for British Columbia here to be progressive, to be leaders, to lead the country. I think in some cases in this legislation we are, and in other cases we can push it forward and even be more progressive.
With that I’ll take my seat. I thank the minister for the bill and will come down and visit you in just a minute. Thank you, Madame Speaker, for this opportunity.
Check out my response at second reading to Bill 31, Cannabis Distribution Act.
0 Comments