Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 May 2018 (Justice Committee, Sitting 1, 41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-ju1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Doyle Piwniuk Constituency of Arthur-Virden Vol. LXXI No. 1 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 8, 2018 ISSN 1708-6671

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-First Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP BINDLE, Kelly Thompson PC CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC CURRY, Nic Kildonan PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FLETCHER, Steven, Hon. Assiniboia Ind. FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Clifford Emerson PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake PC JOHNSTON, Scott St. James PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP KLASSEN, Judy Kewatinook Lib. LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Burrows Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MAYER, Colleen St.

Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC Vacant St. Boniface

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Tuesday, May 8, 2018 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East) ATTENDANCE – 10 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Goertzen, Hon. Mrs. Stefanson Mr. Curry, Ms. Fontaine, Messrs. Graydon, Helwer, Isleifson, Marcelino, Piwniuk, Swan APPEARING: Hon.

Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 11 –The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle, private citizen Ms. Daphne Penrose, Advocate for Children and Youth, Manitoba Mr. Ralph Groening, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Alan Campbell, Manitoba School Boards Association Mr. Michael Mailman, private citizen Mr. Will Stewart, Hiku Brands Mr. Lorne Weiss, Manitoba Real Estate Association Mr. Steven Stairs, private citizen Mr. Ariel Glinter, The Joint Head Shop Inc.

Ms. Denise Elias, MADD Canada Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places) Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle, private citizen Mr. Alan Campbell, Manitoba School Boards Association Ms. Sarah Hawkins, Canadian Cancer Society Mr. Neil Johnston, Lung Association of Manitoba Mr. Ariel Glinter, private citizen Mr. Steven Stairs, 420 Organizing Committee Bill 26 –The Impaired Driving Offences Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Alan Campbell, Manitoba School Boards Association Ms.

Denise Elias, MADD Canada WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places) John McDonald, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance Inc.

Bill 26 –The Impaired Driving Offences Act (Various Acts Amended) Joe Masi, Association of Manitoba Municipalities MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 4–The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (Member Changing Parties) Bill 11 –The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places) Bill 26 –The Impaired Driving Offences Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening.

Will this committee–standing committee of Justice please come to order. Our item –first item of business is to elect of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I–Mr. Chair, I nominate Len Isleifson. Mr. Chairperson: Is there any other nominations? I hear no other nominations, Mr. Isleifson is now elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting will be called to consider the following bills: Bill 4, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (Member Changing Parties); Bill 11, The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba lottery –Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act amendment –Amended); Bill 25, The Non- Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act , 'provibing'–'provibiding' cannabis consumption in outdoor public places ; and Bill 26, The Impaired Driving Offences Act (Various Acts Amended).

I would like to inform all attendants of the provision of we –our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. The standing committee meeting is considered–a bill–must not sit past midnight to be–to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except the unanimous consent of the committee. We have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight, as not ed in –on the list of presenters before you. On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will now note that there will be–have some out -of-town presenters in attendance, marked with the asteri sk on the list.

As well, I request that we r eceived that Sylvia [phonetic] Sabourin Grindle to present first on bills 11 and 25 due to personal health reasons, and then Daphne Penrose requested to present first due to child- care arrangements. With all these in mind, in that–what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Chairperson, I propose as you've indicated, we heard from the out-of-town presenters as well as those individuals that you stated who, for various reasons, need to present early. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. All in–which order? Mr.

Swan: Well, if you've said that some need to present first, I'd suggest we let them go first. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we'll do that. Okay, thanks. Is that agreed by the committee? [Agreed] Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to c ommittee members: Mr. John McDonald, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance, Inc. on Bill 25; Joe Masi, associated Manitoba municipalities, on Bill 26.

Does the c ommittee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard trans cripts in –of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to be considered. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance room –in front–the entrance in –at the desk at the front entrance. First of all, is it any other–else–attendants would like to make a presentation? Okay, we got that.

Also all the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If we need help for photocopying, please speak to the staff–our staff at the back of the room. As well, in accordance with the rules –item number–limits–time limits is 10 minutes and has been allotted for presentations, and another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members.

If the prese nters is not in 'detendance', their names will be carried –will be called and they would be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance with their name is called at the second time, they are removed from the presenters' list. * (18:10) Lastly, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are ordered in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time every –someone wishes to speak, whether it's to b e an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say their–the person's name.

This is the single that –for Hansard to record–to return the mic on or off. Thank you for your 'pratience', and we will proceed with the public presentations.

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 Bill 11–The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) Mr. Chairperson: Now I'll call on –first person is Sylvia [phonetic] Sabourin Grindle, a private citizen. So, Sylvie, if you can come up to the mic. Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle (Private Citizen): Hello, good evening. You're all sitting so far away – [interjection] Mr.

Chairperson: Before we start with the presentation, I'll get the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Stefanson, to com e and take a seat. [interjection] Do you have any materials what you want to hand out, Ms. Grindle? Ms. Sabourin Grindle: No, I don't have that. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Thank you. I w as just making a comment that I find you're all sitting so far away. I'm used to doing circle time with groups of children back when I was working and is –sitting like this.

But thank you for having me here again today and thank you for being here, taking the time to listen to my presentation. My name is Sylvie Sabourin Grindle, also this evening is my friend Kerri Phoda [phonetic] and we have known each other for many years, and if I'm not able to present what I have prepared , she will continue for me. Please understand that it may be difficult to articulate my thoughts and sometimes my sentences are distorted and I can be hard to follow. I will do my best to explain things to you because it's important for me that you understand how these bills affect me.

I currently live in Winnipeg. I grew up on a farm in the community of St. Jean Baptiste. I lived there with my family until the age of 18. I'm recognizing more and more that having been raised in a healthy, safe and stable home is a privilege that many don't have. I had it easy for many years. This allowed me to experience life as a healthy person. Having all my basic needs met without needing to worry made it easy for me to go to school and be involved in the community. I easily had the necessary means to survive which allowed me to dream big and do what I wanted and accomplish my goals.

I was able to have the career or my choice and jobs that I truly enjoyed. My husband and I even bought a home in the neighborhood of our choice. Needless to say, life has been good to me. And then circumstances changed. I found myself unable to work because of mental health issues. I have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and associative disorders. Now I am 42 and this is my fourth year that I am cons idered disabled and not able to work. In fact, I'm not even considered to be functional.

I'm here to speak with you this evening not because I'm well enough or courageous enough to be here, I'm here because I'm too terrified not to be here. I'm scared of these laws being created which will limit access to my medication which I desperately need. Part of my PTSD treatment includes medical cannabis. I have been prescribed 10 grams a day to help with my symptoms. I consume about five grams a day. This is the minimum that I need. I use cannabis all day long.

Just like many of us who depend on glasses to be able to see all day, every day, the same goes for me and cannabis; I always require cannabis in order to function. Five grams a day doesn't make me high. I n fact, it barely even makes me happy. It definitely doesn't cure my PTSD, but it alleviates my symptoms enough so I could survive. After years of being emotionally numb, cannabis is allowing me to feel. It allowed me to go to therapy and it allows me to be part of family gatherings which I hadn't been able to do for many years.

While there are many people interested in the cannabis industry, my interest in the plant is that it be available to anyone who needs it, whenever and wherever they need it. Quality of life matters and I will focus this presentation on the subject of mental –of trauma and mental health. I hope to help you understand why cannabis needs to be made available to those who need it, not criminalized because this just causes more pain. Having the words to explain and express my feelings when I'm afraid or angry isn't easy.

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 Thankfully, I've had a lot of therapy –not enough though, but –and my recovery is still ongoing. Which–my recovery which is still ongoing has required a lot of what most traumatized and sick Manitobans don't have, like access to trauma - informed therapy and other supports. I recognize the role that privilege has played in my recovery, as well as the ongoing support I receive; without it, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be able to even be here and definitely would not be presenting this evening.

It's thanks to my other fellow friends in the cannabis community as well that I am able to be here today, and to my friend Kerri [phonetic] who helped me come here today. Keeping in mind how difficult it was and what it took for me to be here and the fact that there are many, many sick and traumatized people in this province who depend on cannabis, it's safe to assume that there are many others who are also worried about these laws b ut are not well enough to be here.

We are talking about people who have the most painful and debilitating physical conditions and people who are traumatized from experiencing things most people could not even imagine but still manage to survive. Some cannabis users are dying and looking for relief; others, such as myself, who suffer from mental illness, use cannabis as part of our fight to live. We are discussing laws that will affect the quality of life and the safety of people that aren't even well enough to be here.

I'm very concerned that while these laws are meant to keep people safe, they will, in fact, cause a lot of stress and make the lives of many people a lot more difficult. I want to help you understand what psychological trauma is and its impact. For an experience we consider psychologically traumatic, it means that there is nothing you can do to prevent it from happening; there is nothing you can do to prepare for it, and it is completely unexpected. Trauma can happen to anyone at any time a nywhere. We don't like to think about those things, but it's the truth.

Whether someone experienced a terrifying split -second or years, even decades of horror, trauma can happen to anyone. You might have heard the term trauma changes us. People say that because it's true. I went from having a healthy nervous system to suddenly having a traumatized nervous system. I went from being able to regulate my emotions, process my thoughts and feelings normally as they occurred, to being scared to death and highl y reactive, even when everything is okay. I went from having a healthy sense of safety to never feeling safe. Because trauma lives in our nervous system, the effect is ongoing.

Every single time we are reminded of any aspect of a traumatic event, our amy gdala signals to the rest of us that there is danger. Our body relives and feels the trauma happening all over again. This is called re -experiencing. For many people this occurs hundreds of times a day and never even get a chance to feel safe because they are constantly being triggered. We obviously cannot change anything that happened in the past, but the effects of the past remain, even for decades.

Then there's intergenerational trauma where children and adults of any age can experience painful feelings that were too much for their parents or their grandparents to feel. The pain can remain stuck for generations. It stays until someone is able to feel it to heal from it. Healing, however, requires actual safety, which is why many people don't have the chance to heal from past trauma because they are not even safe in the present. I will now speak more regarding the no residential cultivation of cannabis. In the bill I saw it said a person must not cultivate cannabis in his or her residence.

Well, marginalized and underprivileged people experience higher rates of trauma, so eventually –[interjection] I'll get to that– this is because trauma creates trauma. Those who are most commonly affected are people of colour, refugees, anyone who needed to flee their family home or were apprehended. Many people who have been in accidents or have witnessed violence may also develop PTSD. Most people with PTSD developed it during childhood and have never experienced feeling safe. PTSD is also common amongst humani tarian workers, first responders, military personnel and veterans.

All these people deserve the same respect, access to treatment and the same right to access medicine of their choice, including cannabis. The reason I'm mentioning the various people who are affected by trauma is because these are likely the same groups of people who would likely use cannabis because cannabis helps with trauma. Having laws that make their lives more difficult isn't fair. Acc ording to the Manitoba Nurses Union, one in four nurses have symptoms of PTSD.

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 Manitoba also has the highest child apprehension rates in the world. It's safe to assume that there's a large amount of traumatized people in this province. Sadly, however, Ma nitoba has less than half the national average of psychologists. We have only 19 for every hundred thousand Manitobans. That is about 266 psychologists for the entire province and most of them aren't even able to help traumatized people heal. Allowing everyone to grow and consume cannabis without needing to ask permission is what I would like to see.

This includes in their homes, on their property, wherever they live, even inside apartments. Those who cannot afford any therapeutic care could at least gr ow and consume cannabis to help them feel better. Experience is– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Grindle, you have one more minute. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: One more minute? * (18:20) Mr. Chairperson: Yes. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Okay. My next one is shorter. Can I, like– Mr. Chairperson: Oh, so you've got two presentations, right? Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Yes, yes. I–okay. Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Thank you. I would love to be able to finish– Mr.

Chairperson: We'll deal with this one, yes. Okay. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Okay. Experience is the best teacher–but thank you for warning me. Experience is the best teacher, and when I couldn't work anymore I traded my good salary for a welfare cheque and a CPP disability cheque. This has been eye -opening for me. I'm finally being educated on how those who require financial assistance have always been treated and how their lives are continuously being made more difficult.

The only embarrassing part of being on welfare is the fact that I had no idea wh at it was like for my fellow Manitobans who lacked privilege until I found myself in that situation. I trusted that because this was Canada, everyone was taken care of. I was totally wrong about that. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Grindle, your 10 minutes is done now, and I was –wondered if the committee wants to give leave to have it –to have you continue and wrap up the presentation. [Agreed] So, Ms. Grindle, you have a few more minutes to continue your presentation–and it's just on this one bill here. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: What's that? Mr.

Chairperson: It's only on this one bill. This– Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Yes, yes, yes. I just, like it when I get through on–just one moment. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Sure. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Well, Bill 11 leaves out the most vulnerable people in our society from benefiting from a plant that will soon be available to those who could afford it. Getting a prescription can be costly and a difficult process.

I don't even know how those who live in the remote communities would be able to get a prescription, and then to order cannabis from a licensed producer we need to have a credit card, and many people don't have that. And then I imagine delivery would also take a long time in certain communities. We need more accessibility, not barriers. I'm talking about people who have already been through enough. Many of us–I'm so close to being done. Many of us have the time to grow. Growing itself could be healing. Being able to connect more deeply with your own medicine could even help with healing.

This is an opportunity to give so many people a chance to heal. I worry these laws will keep people from accessing their medication, and it will keep more innocent people in prison and I don't want that. Thank you f or listening and for being patient with me. Mr. Chairperson: Well, Ms. Grindle, thank you for your presentation. And what we'll do is we'll do the five -minute questions from this particular bill for Bill 11. So if you have any questions, I'll –Ms. Stefan son has a question or a comment? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I just have –I just wanted to thank you, Ms.

Sabourin Grindle, for coming out

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 tonight and for sharing your very personal story with us this evening. We very much appreciate this. You're very passionate about this issue. You spoke very well this evening, and thank you again for sharing your story. Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): So I just want to say miigwech for your presentation. It does certainly take a lot of courage and a lot of strength to come and present in front of a bunch of politicians and, certainly, a room full of people.

So I do just want to honour that, and I just want to say very quickly that I certainly already learnt a lot in respect of–we knew that some of the issues or some of the concerns with this particular legislation is the inability to grow within your home. And so I really do appreciate how you broke that down for all of us. And I hope that mem bers opposite and the minister hear some of your concerns and would seriously reconsider them. So I say miigwech for that. Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? Mr. Nic Curry (Kildonan): Thank you so much for your presentation.

In someone who has struggled with speaking in public, I am impressed, and thank you so much for bringing that. Before politics I was in the military. I've worked with many people with post-traumatic stress who use medical access for cannabis to cope with their symptoms, and I think it's very brave of you to bring that –many people are embarrassed by that –and that you've shown such strength to be able to talk publicly about that on the record is very impressive.

And thank you so much, and I hope that you continue to work with, of course, your medical providers, but also your family and friends who I know will be such important supports. It is not a one-day thing; it is an ongoing process, and it sounds like you've done a lot of work in coping with the stressors that you have discussed. But when–and I hope you can continue that through this and I look forward to your ability to present on the next topic. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? So, Ms. Grindle, that wraps up questions. So we can go on to the next presentation that you requested to–on Bill 25.

So–[interjection]–yes, which is the other minister, so we'll get the ministers to switch seats. Floor Comment: Oh, different ones? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, Mr. Goertzen now is the Minister of Health. Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Ms. Grindle, you can go ahead with your presentation. Ms. Sylvie Sabourin Grindle (Private Citizen): Okay, now, this one is Bill 25. Again, it's a little bit of–well, anyways, what we hardly ever hear talk about are other illnesses brought on by trauma.

Some are considered forms of PTSD. These include complex PTSD, post -traumatic slave syndrome, continuous traumatic stress disorder and post-incarceration syndrome, which is a combination of full -blown PTSD plus other severe debilitating symptoms. Dissociative disorders are also common and caused by trauma. I'm mentioning these conditions which represent various sets of symptoms because those who experience these conditions are more likely to be targeted by police or other security personnel. A main component of each of these disorders is emotional dysregulation.

Traumatized people don't react the same way that non -traumatized people do. I know this from experience. Before I was traumatized, my behaviour was fine. I chose my actions and generally I had a good attitude. Now, more often than not, my behaviour is governed by fear.

Keeping in mind how sensitive many of us are to triggers, I want you to understand that amongst trauma survivors one of the most common triggers are authority figures, so for me to interact with a police officer when I'm so terrified of them and explain the use of my medication isn't fair, and this scenario of being stopped by cops plays over in my mind and results in panic attacks simply by thinking about it. I've never even been in trouble with the law and yet I'm completely terrified of cops. Because of my medicine and border laws I may never be allowed to leave Canada.

I will come to accept this possibility, but I ask you to please allow me and many others the freedom to safely go for walks in our neighbourhoods and to travel and at least help us feel safe in our own province. Causing this level of anxiety and panic isn't healthy and isn't going to keep anyone safe, and putting someone's

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 parents in prison for cannabis won't be good for anyone either. I want police officers and everyone else to assume t hat if anyone is using cannabis anywhere , it's because they require it. We're not criminals; we're just trying to survive. The next

part I want to talk about is The Mental Health Act. It turns out it's mental health awareness week, and the theme is Get Lo ud. And, since we are discussing part of The Mental Health Act, I would like to know if there are other –if there are mental health organizations present to show their support. That tends to be rare, and us patients are usually left to speak up and advocate for ourselves. I'm here to raise my voice because I have to. Bill 25 would make it a criminal offence for anyone to bring me some cannabis if I were to be admitted into a psychiatric hospital.

This is where people go when they are at their worst. Cannabis should be considered the same as a regular medicine and patients should be accommodated to safely use their medicine as needed. When it comes to vehicles, as I have indicated, I consume cannabis all day long. When I want to visit my parents in St. Jea n Baptiste or my in -laws in Swan River, I need to medicate all the way there. It's a long drive to Swan River, and this would mean many stops along the way where I'd need to exit the car and medicate somewhere. This would especially be difficult when it's really cold outside.

I don't even know where I would stop along the way to safely medicate, and I don't how others would travel–who travel could be –can stay medicated with laws prohibiting us from doing so inside vehicles. Whether it's a car, motorhome, or boat, an off -road vehicle or a bicycle, we need to medicate as needed. Thankfully, I have the support of my family and my husband's family and my friends, and I have the community support. I'm here now to ask for your support as well. I want to feel safe. I ask you to please consider my safety and my need to access my medication whenever, wherever I need it.

I appreciate your time. Thank you very much for listening to my presentation. I didn't focus on the specific articles in each bill as much as I wish I had. I wish I had–I was more advanced in my recovery to be able to present you something more comprehensible. This is all very difficult for me because I get triggered easily. Even just reading the bill is overwhelming. And– but I cannot wait unti l I have all the right words to express myself because now is when we are discussing these laws. My main message for you this evening is that you decriminalize cannabis.

I don't want anyone to be in prison because of cannabis. I want cannabis users to be accommodated so we can safely use it as needed. I don't want cannabis included in these bills, because it's a plant; it's a medicine. [interjection] * (18:30) Thank you. I had actually planned to give you a copy of my presentation, and I do have the list of resources that talk about cannabis, addictions, PTSD. Mr. Chairperson: If you want, you can– Ms. Grindle, you can actually leave some of the information behind and get it photocopied with one of our staff in the back. Okay.

And I want to thank you f or your two presentations that you did. You did a very good job, and so–we're going on for five minutes for questions. So I'll pass it on to the Minister of Health to have comments. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living ): Thank you very much, Mrs. Grindle, add my thanks from my colleagues on both sides of the table for your presentation and echo their comments that you did a great job in–on providing information and advice for this committee.

You referenced, I think, and in a few different ways, your concern about the ability to access medicinal marijuana, and I want to assure you that the bill that we're speaking to right now, Bill 25, provides within it regulatory powers to make changes. All provinces are struggling with how to implement the decriminalization of marijuana and, certainly, we want to have some flexibility in that.

So contained within this bill is that flexibility to look at medicinal marijuana differently than other consumption of cannabis and to see how we ca n ensure that those who are using it for medical purposes can still have the access they need for it. So your advice has been helpful as we look to regulatory provisions in the future around medicinal marijuana, and I appreciate you providing that here this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Grindle, go ahead if you have a–you can comment on that. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Well, just two comments. One is on a general comment.

The things that I heard from you guys is commenting on my courage and ability to speak and that. I'm not here at all–at all–at

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 all–for that. I'm here because I'm so desperate, okay? I'm desperate. I'm n ot here for courage. I'm here because I'm desperate. I'm here for my safety. I'm here for my quality of life. That's why I'm here and that's what I need you guys to understand. And even, like, the difference between medicinal marijuana or cannabis and regular or recreational–all cannabis is medicinal. If–those who are traumatized, we require it not to make us high, but to bring us back to normal, okay? It brings us normal.

Those who may not require it, it might make them high, and then if it makes them hav e a good time and laugh, that's the best medicine. So, on that note, thank you all so much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Swan has a question or comment. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Yes. Thank you for coming down and presenting. As the minister has said, the government wants to pass this law, but the law actually doesn't specify a lot of things other than a pretty strict prohibition on where you can use cannabis.

There's regulations the government then gets to pass after the act becomes law that could expand the prohibition or reduce the prohibition. For your circumstances, what do you think is reasonable for where you should be able to use cannabis, given your situation. Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Okay, I'll just explain, for one thing, what I would not do. What I would not do is smoke with –there's children around unless I absolutely have to, okay? I would not smoke inside buildings except for my own home or where I'm, you know, allowed to or whatever.

I don't –I would not smoke, like–so don't assume that people who would, like, be rude about it, okay? The only time that –like, I'm discreet about it. What I want is –like, I have agoraphobia. What I want is I want to be able to leave my home with –and if I forget my prescription at home, I want that to be fine. I want–because organizational skills– Mr. Chairperson: Could you get closer to the mic, please? Ms. Sabourin Grindle: Sorry. Organizational skills for people who are traumatized is next to impossible. I couldn't even bring my driver's licence here to day. I forgot it.

It's – so leaving the house is already –it takes everything that I've got. So I want to be able to just leave, and if I just have my pipe or whatever, not in its original container, just go wherever I want. If I'm walking down the street, if I'm at a bus stop, even where – because it's my medicine. I would need it if –just like if someone is –needs an EpiPen. It's–like, PTSD triggers are pretty much the same as allergies, food allergies. We cannot control them. We don't decide them and it needs immediate attention. You need to– like, you hold your breath and you can't –it's like almost the same thing.

You can't breathe when you're triggered from PTSD and that's like –cannabis helps us with all that. So, if I'm having a panic attack somewhere and I'm smoking or whatever –like, I–it's–I try not to do that. But, if I do it, I want it to be always understood that is because I have to. Like, myself and many others, whatever we do is the best that we can and we're just trying to survive, and we need you guy s to be helping us feel safe in our city. Like, even if I go to a festival or something and I have my medication in my backpack, I don't want to have to explain what's in my backpack to a security guard.

I just want to go listen to music. Because explaining what's in my backpack, explaining my medication is triggering. It's all very triggering. I just want to live again. I just want to be part of the world. I just want to go to music festivals. I just want to be able to walk down the sidewalk, go in the–on the–ride my bike, be able to just –if I feel like smoking, I smoke. And, if people don't like the smell, it's life, it's the price to pay. There is many survivors around here and, sorry, it's like sometimes when trauma happens you either die or survive. Some of us survive.

Well, it comes with a cost and the cost is PTSD and that requires –oftentimes it requires cannabis. So we need you guys to support us and accommodate us. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Grindle, thanks a lot. The question time of five minutes is up. But thank you very much for your presentation. Floor Comment: Thank you, also, for your time. Bill 11–The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: So we'll call on the next individual, Ms. Daphine Penrose–Daphne.

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Ms. Penrose, you have material to hand out? Yes. So our staff will hand it out and so I want to– can proceed with your presentation. Ms. Daphne Penrose (Advocat e for Children and Youth, Manitoba): Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth is an independent office of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.

We represent the rights, interests and viewpoints of c hildren, youth and young adults throughout Manitoba receiving, or entitled to receive, services under The Child and Family Services Act, The Adoptions Act, mental health services, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, youth justice, disability servic es and education. Having extensively studied federal Bill C -45 in conjunction with provincial Bill 11, and looking at the potential impacts that the passage of these bills would have on Manitoba children, youth and young adults, we wish to express some concerns.

With the expanded mandate recently proclaimed for the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth, my office is committed to the protection and promotion of the rights of the province's children, youth and young adults, as guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, further known as the UNCRC. When discussing cannabis legislation, two important articles in the UNCRC need to be considered.

Article 33 of the UNCRC states that government should take all appropriate measures , including legislative, administrative and social educational measures to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties. There is little argument against the fact tha t legalization of cannabis has been presented as a public health approach, and as a means to protect the health of children and youth. While this has been a stated intention, aspects of both the federal bill and Manitoba's Bill 11 do not provide adequate protection under the UNCRC. Additionally,

article 3 of the UNCRC states that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the bes t interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. To understand the impacts of legislative measures on children, youth, the UN committee on the rights of the child recommended that the child's rights impact assessment should be conducted when governments propose legislative change.

When considering Bill 11, a primary concern in the study of the bill should be whether or not the child's rights impact was undertaken. By focusing on and considering the rights of Manitoba's children and youth and y oung adults, the legalization of cannabis can meet its public health mandate, prote ct children and youth from the e ffects of cannabis consumption and the unintended consequences of the prohibitionist framework Manitoba has proposed for children and youth under the age of 19.

As a member of the Canadian Council of Children & Youth Advocates known as the CCCYA, I have been involved in presenting a number of concerns and recommendations regarding Bill C -45.

On July 5th of 2017, the CCCYA provided recommendations to Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, and the Premier Rachel Notley, as the chair of the council of federation respecting analysis of and recommendations regarding Bill C-45. * (18:40) The letter provided spoke about the impacts of legalization on children and youth, and provided recommendations on the following areas: the e ffects of cannabis on the developing brain; youth access to cannabis; supplying cannabis to minors; the need for consistent regulations across Canada; the need to designate a portion of taxes to fund research, public education and treatment; the potential for over-criminalization of youth; and special consideration respecting indigenous children and youth.

Many of the concerns identified by CCCYA remain topical and relevant to the discussion on the impact of Bill 11. The issues noted at the federal level are important for Manitoba's children and youth, with our province presenting unique challenges for the legalization of cannabis. Bill 11 does little to address the issue noted at the federal level and in some circumstances creates conflict and larger, more pressing questions.

By focusing on the discussion of Bill 11 on Manitoba's public education strategy, age of access to cannabis, youth possession prohibitions and the impact on indigenous youth and community, the need for this

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 bill to be subject to further consultation and fuller consideration of the impact on children and youth rights will be exemplified. Public education and health strategy: It i s recognized that cannabis criminalization and conventional anti-drug messaging has failed to stem the use of cannabis by young people. With the upcoming legalization of cannabis, Canada and Manitoba will be provided with the opportunity to reframe the dis cussion with a public -health-oriented approach.

An appropriate public health framework with supported education strategies can prioritize the reduction of health risks and social problems over goals such as punishment and drug abstinence. The CCCYA previ ously recommended that at the national level a public-health-informed education strategy accompany the regulations of cannabis with the inclusion of youth component informed by the latest evidence that works to moderate use of substances by youth.

As Manit oba rolls out its cannabis-related legislation special attention should be paid to the creation of a province -specific public health and education strategy focusing on youth. Bill 11 indicates that the regulation of cannabis will fall under the previous Liquor and Gaming Authority of Manitoba, LGA. In the request for proposals released by the LGA in April of 2018, it's identified that the LGA's mandate will grow to include educating Manitobans about the responsible consumption of cannabis.

The LGA states that the objective of their RFP and the initial education strategy is to communicate to adults in Manitoba what the laws will be for purchasing and consuming cannabis once it's legalized. The objective of phase 2 is to increase adult Manitobans' awareness of strategies for consuming cannabis responsibly and in a low -risk manner. Additionally, the RFP identifies the target audience as adult Manitobans. There is concern that not enough attention is being paid to the education strategies that are focused on youth.

In 2015 Statistics Canada provided information indicating the number of youth and young adults who used cannabis in that year was more than two and a half times that of adults. Additionally, research conducted by the Manitoba LGA through surveys in September 2007 identified that age 16 was the most common age respondents used cannabis for the first time. Other results from Manitoba cannabis survey include reported public safety concerns regarding preventing under -age consumption, preventing under -age purchase of cannabis and the need for public education on the risks of cannabis used for children and youth.

With this information it's concerning that Bill 11 does not include provisions on the responsibility for educating Manitoba's children and youth on the use of cannabis. Bill 11 also does not fall in line with other CCCYA recommendations regarding the packaging of cannabis such that cannabis should contain information on potency and potential harmful effects, similar to the packaging on tobacco.

At the federal level the CCCYA provided a recommendation that specific portion of taxes collected from the sale of cannabis products be prescribed in legislation to support research, education, treatment and harm reduction efforts respecting cannabis. It i s respectfully submitted that any taxes collected through the cannabis sales in Manitoba should be used for similar research, public education and treatment purposes. It is a known fact that within the province there are currently many youths struggling with drug-related addictions.

Their lives are at eminent risk due to the severity of their addictions, yet we have no long-term detox or safe houses or treatment beds for these youth. A very small portion of the taxes collected for the sale of these yout h should be identified and used to treat –for treatment resources for children and youth that could literally save their lives. Age of access and youth possession prohibitions: The CCCYA and Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth have maintained the posi tion that the Cannabis Act, Bill C -45, does not fully account for the potential harms of cannabis on the developing brain.

By setting the age of access at 18, the effect of cannabis on young adult population was not fully taken into consideration in Bill C-45. In order to address this gap, the CCCYA has previously provided recommendations to the federal government and Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that potency limits for cannabis products be set by either federal or provincial regulation, with potency restrictions set for those under the age of 25.

The federal government has publicly provided information in an online question and answer that their decision to set the age limit for purchasing cannabis at 18 was based on a striking balance between risk factors and the knowledge that youth and young adults are already accessing cannabis.

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Penrose, you have one more minute left. Ms. Penrose: Can I just finish my presentation? This is very important. Mr. Chairperson: Sure, if you have–the–'clead' for– to have the committee agree to presentation. An Honourable Member: I'd move we allow Ms. Penrose to finish her presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed to the–for the committee? [Agreed] We'll finish your presentation. Ms. Penrose: Bill C-45 provided the provinces and territories with the discretion to increase– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, sorry, my mic wasn't on, Ms. Penrose.

But you have one more minute. But, anyways, I guess Minister Swan had passed that we will continue with your pr esentation until you complete it. The committee agreed and so ordered. We'll have you continue with your presentation. Ms. Penrose: Okay. Thank you. Sorry –Bill C -45 provided the provinces and the territories with the discretion to increase the age of access to cannabis as they deemed appropriate. As outlined in Bill 11, Manitoba has set the age of access to cannabis at 19.

Similar to Bill C-45, Bill 11 does not address the issue of cannabis potency for those under 25 and fails to address the potency harm s of cannabis for that age group. There are serious and concerning questions that arise from defining a young person in Bill 11 as individuals under 19. Firstly, Manitoba's seemingly the only province that has proposed an age of access to cannabis that dif fers from the provincial–from the province's legal age of access to alcohol.

Alberta and Quebec, two other provinces where the legal age for purchasing alcohol and tobacco is 18, both set the access to cannabis at 18, while setting the age at 19 falls in line with the provinces where the legal alcohol -consumption age is also 19. It is puzzling as to why Manitoba would have two varying ages of access to alcohol and cannabis. In addition to providing provinces with the power to increase the age of access, t he federal government provided provinces the opportunity to lower the possession limit of cannabis. Manitoba did not lower the position limit for adults but provided, in

section 101.18, that "A young person must not possess or consume cannabis." This lower s the possession limit outlined for young persons under 18 than it–than Bill C -45 does, which identifies there's no criminal penalties for possession up to 5 grams of dried cannabis. Further, 18-year-old adults would not be subject to criminal proceedings under Bill C -45 until possession exceeded 30 grams of dried cannabis. The concern is that Bill 11 is creating an increased opportunity for criminalization of young persons 18 and under by including an outright prohibition on possession and consumption of cannabis.

This concern is exasperated by the fact that Bill 11 and the act it amends, The Liquor and Gaming Control Act, do not set out specific penalties for young persons or minors who are found to be in violation of prohibitions set out in the act. Bill 11 has increased the penalties for violation of the act by removing the individuals, will be prosecuted on

summary convictions, increasing the maximum fine to $100,000 and maximum imprisonment for one year. Wording in Bill C -45 makes it discretionary on whether youth will be liable on an indictable or

summary conviction for cannabis-related offences. Due to the varying levels of disposition associated with these types of convictions, young persons will require a clear understanding of when their posse ssion of cannabis will be subject to criminal sanctions. The CCCYA supported the position that steps should be taken to avoid criminalization of youth by allowing for non-criminal sanctions such as confiscation and ticketing.

While it's perfectly reasonable to identify that only those persons 19 and older will be allowed to purchase cannabis, it needs to be clearly identified how Manitoba law enforcement agencies will be enforcing possession of cannabis for those 18 and under. The federal government has identified the following objectives for cannabis legislation: restricting youth access to cannabis, protecting young people from the promotion or enticements to use cannabis, protecting public health and reducing the burden on the criminal justice system.

With these objectives in mind, it becomes unclear why legislation would criminalize youth for consuming or being in possession of cannabis. Bill 11 also states that a person must not give or sell, otherwise supply cannabis to a young person, and Bill C -45 has created new criminal offences for adults who supply cannabis to minors.

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 * (18:50) Law enforcement efforts should focus on who is supplying cannabis to children and youth and should not limit youth criminalization –and should limit youth criminalization through confiscation and by providing education and resources to youth who violate the cannabis prohibitions. Impact on indigenous youth and communities: Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is a recognized concern in Manitoba for both adult and youth populations.

Without clear regulations on how Bill 11's prohibition of youth possession in cannabis will be applied, there are concerns about how indigenous youth may be subject to increased criminalization over their non-indigenous peers. Inequitable access to diversion programs, support programs, mental health and addiction services will influence the potential for indigenous youth to be criminalized at a higher rate for cannabis possession.

Additionally, mitigating the mental health risk factors of cannabis use in youth will be compounded within indigenous communities, as there are recognized disparities in access to needed services. Without concrete action to address these disparities, indigenous communities may rai se legitimate claims to violation of their Charter rights. The legacy of colonialism in Manitoba and across Canada has resulted in health and social disparities for indigenous children and youth.

These same disparities can result in poor access to services including substance -use services as well as, most importantly, health-promotion strategies that do not take into consideration local conditions and cultural needs of indigenous children, youth and their families. On behalf of the CCCYA, I delivered a presentation of our recommendations to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples as part as their–as part of their canvassing for feedback on Bill C-45 and the impact on indigenous peoples.

On May 1st, 2018, the committee released a report on the subject matter of Bill C -45 supporting the notion that the passing of Bill C -45 should be delayed by one year. One of the main themes arising from their report was the lack of culturally specific public education materials on the legislation pertaining to the legalization of cannabis and on the health effects of cannabis. The Liquor and Gaming Authority RFP regarding Manitoba's education strategy does not address the concerns of indigenous people and identified the education campaign would be released in English and French but no indigenous languages.

Information contained in the Manitoba Cannabis Survey indicates residents of northern Manitoba who participate in the services consume cannabis at a higher rate than respondents in Winnipeg, Brandon and southern Manitoba in general. To have an education campaign that does not address the unique circumstances in Manitoba's northern communities would be short-sighted.

Additionally, the Standing Senate Committee recommended a delay in the passing of cannabis legislation because of the lack of meaningful consultation and the lack of full understanding of the economic development opportunities for indigenous communities. This lack of consultation resulted in questions around revenue sharing and how First Nations governments can be involved in the taxing authority over the sale of cannabis.

To reiterate a previous recommendation of the CCCYA, the Province should fulfill its inherent obligations to consult meaningfully with Manitoba indigenous bands, nations and comm unities, as well as indigenous youth on adapting legislation, regulation, health promotion, prevention, treatment programs to meet the needs of indigenous children, youth and young adults and their families.

In conclusion, while the legalization of cannabis has been supported as a harm -reduction approach intended to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and protecting public health and public safety, current proposed legislation falls short of these objectives. Bill 11 was the Province's opportunity to create a Manitoba approach to the regulation of cannabis, and numerous concerns have arisen on how this legislation will impact Manitoba's children, youth and young adults.

Consideration must be given to this population, with the impacts on their rights identified, understood and mitigated in an appropriate manner. The questions and concerns identified today should be seriously considered as Manitoba moves forward with its proposed legislation and subsequent public health and education campaigns.

It is respectfully submitted that while Bill C -45 and Bill 11 may be passed, proclamation should not occur until indigenous communities are engaged in a meaningful consultation, health education strategies are fully developed and the available–and available to the public, and youth criminalization mitigated through policies or regulations supporting ticketing,

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 confiscation, education and resources for youth consuming or possessing cannabis. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Pe nrose, and we'll go on to questions, and I'll have a comment first from the Minister Stefanson – Ms. Stefanson. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Penrose, for your presentation this evening.

We certainly share many of the –of your concerns with respect to the federal government's decision to legalize cannabis, especially in the area of children and youth. And I think we've spoken out on many of those issues as well. But we certainly welcome your thoughts here this evening on behalf of your organization and we thank you for presenting them tonight. Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech, Ms. Penrose, for your presentation, a very robust presentation. I appreci ate you and your staff for putting that together. A couple of questions.

So I am curious, has anybody from the Department of Justice reached out to you or your staff in respect of crafting this legislation and its impact on youth here in Manitoba? Ms. Penrose: So we do have a meeting coming up on Thursday to discuss that and other issues as well. So– Ms. Fontaine: So, for clarity, though, the question was had anybody reached out to you to seek your expertise or to consult with you prior to drafting this legislation. Ms. Penrose: No. No, they did not. Ms.

Fontaine: So clearly, I would suggest that your office is –and your staff, who are some of the most phenomenal people that I know in respect of advocating for youth here in Manitoba, would have a level of expertise in respect of what we would need to do in respect of a public awareness campaign, specifically geared towards youth. What are some of the things that you would like to see in that? Ms.

Penrose: So I think a very clear public education campaign about what is going to happen with law enforcement agencies; I would also like to make sure that we are not criminalizing children, that we are recognizing the disparities that happen between indigenous communities and non-indigenous communities with respect to access to services.

Again, I am concerned about the prohibition piece because the data shows that children –not children, but youth are in fact engaging in the use of cannabis and having any cannabis on them at all up to the age of 19 is a criminal offence and when you are 18 and you get a possession charge, it is very different than when you are 16 years old and you get a possession charge, so –and that can follow you through your life in– you know, your friend is 19 in one day and they can have a number of grams on you, but you're 18, 11 months and two weeks and you're going to possibly get a criminal record, and so that disparity, I believe, needs to be addressed, and certainly we don't want to see more criminalization for children and youth and young people in the province.

And also just understanding that we have severely addicted children and youth in this province and trying to make sure that some of these tax dollars are being shaved off to make sure that we are addressing the ramifications that are going to happen as a result of kids using and then becoming addicted because of their own life circumstances and their lack of access to mental health.

And , of course, you can then take that one step further to become aware that if you are in a community where there is no mental health or addictions services being provided to kids, but there's ample access to alcohol and drugs, that becomes even more problematic for those youth and young people. So– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Marcelino, Tyndall Park. Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): Yes, just one quick question regarding this legislation.

Are you of the opinion that maybe we w ould be better served if the legislation is put off until such time that proper consultation with the stakeholders who are more concerned about how it will affect them economically or even legally –do you think it would be better, like the Senate committee that recommended a delay, do you think it will help us as a province? Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Penrose, we have one minute, but if you want to answer that question– okay. Ms. Penrose: Yes, and I defer to folks here with the responsibility of moving the legislation or not.

What I would say is that the regulations and policies that

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 are attached to this particular piece of legislation really need to be considered, thought out, with good public health education strategies and campaigns, with good–with the inclusion of youth in them. I believe that those are absolutely required. Consultation with indigenous communities about how to move forward in a way that they can respond to the needs that this is going to create in their community is also considered–n eeds to be considered. So– * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Well, the time is up for the questions and, Ms.

Penrose, I want to thank you for your presentation and coming out here tonight. Okay, so now we'll call on the next person on bill–we want to go back, Bill 11, out of town, and we're going to go talk to–call on Mr. Ralph Groening from Association of Manitoba Municipalities, and vice-president. I just want to verify your last name – pronunciation of your last name. Is it Groening? Mr. Ralph Groening (Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Matt Groening said on David Letterman, Groening as in raining. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Groening, okay. Okay, we–you can go ahead with your presentation.

Do you also have materials that you hand out? Mr. Groening: We do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Mr. Groening: Oh, they're over here. Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, great. Mr. Groening: Thank you very much. Good evening, committee, Chair, pleasure to be here.

Our federal government has offered us some interesting societal and social challenges, but I will, on behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, want to thank you for the opportunity to present some municipal concerns related to the legalization and regulation of recreational cannabis as well as Bill 11, which is The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act.

I'm going to begin my comments today by providing a brief overview of our association, AMM, and I'll talk about some specific concerns related to holding of mandatory –mandatory– municipal plebisc ites on cannabis sales and then provide some recommendations on how local governments can help manage the safe and responsible retailing of cannabis. So AMM. Our association was formed in 1999, result of the merger between the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. Association is bipartisan.

We're independent, and our mission is to identify and address the needs and concerns of our members in order to achieve strong and effective municipal governments. Mem bership consists of all incorporated 137 municipalities in Manitoba, including the city of Winnipeg. Now, the Minister of Municipal Relations, Jeff Wharton, has stated that municipalities are mature, responsible governments, accountable first and foremost to the citizens and electorate, and we fully support and agree with his statements.

Moreover, provincial governments have committed to providing us, municipalities, with more fair say in regard to the operation of their affairs. The AMM appreciates wo rking with the various provincial government departments on the implementation of the cannabis retail distribution strategy. However, AMM believes that holding mandatory plebiscites following a council decision to allow–not–to not allow cannabis retail loc ations within is –within its municipality goes against the spirit of provincial government's commitment to give more say, to give fair say, to local councils.

Plebiscites are potentially divisive; they're polarizing for local communities, particularly give n the lack of clear and consistent information that we have regarding this, the legalization and the regulation of recreational cannabis. Meanwhile, currently, we understand that The Municipal Act and The Liquor and Gaming Control Act outline guidelines f or holding municipal plebiscites. Thus, stipulation in Bill 11 is not clear when compared to these other pieces of legislation. In addition, local councils do not –we do not – hold plebiscites on other municipal issues.

Residents can, and they do, hold their municipal representatives accountable at the ballot box, which will happen again this October. Now, the costs of holding a municipal plebiscite can be costly for municipalities. For example, the City of Brandon has estimated that holding a plebiscite not in conjunction with an election would

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 cost more than $100,000. The decisions of local councils should be fully respected since council members make them with the very best interests of their municipalities in mind. Therefore, our call –the AMM calls on th e provincial government to remove sections regarding plebiscites on cannabis sales from the bill altogether and instead closely consult with our organization and 'manistoba' municipalities on how best to regulate access to cannabis with local communities.

The alternative approach would not only respect the autonomy and decisions of local council but also help to ensure consistent processes and guidelines across our municipal Manitoba. Now a few comments on cost: AMM continues to urge the provincial government to co -develop a revenue-sharing model that respects municipal authority, increased costs that will be incurred due to the legalization and regulation of recreational cannabis.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, estimates that municipal administration, local policing costs, will total between 3 million and 4.75 million dollars per 500,000 residents as a result of legalization, which represents a range of approximately 210 to 335 million dollars per year of costs incurred by municipalities across Canada. In Manitoba that cost would exceed $10 million annually. We've done some work.

We hired Probe Research and they recently–we commissioned a poll by Probe Research regarding the sharing of revenue from the sale of cannabis with municipalities, and that indicated that 59 per cent of Manitobans believe municipalities should receive at least half of the revenue from the sale of marijuana. These survey results complement the need for fair say for local councils, as well as provide another example of how municipalities deserve a fair share of revenues, and Manitobans support this.

While we appreciate that the legali zation and regulation of recreational cannabis is not a revenue-generating exercise, Manitoba municipalities are committed to ensuring their residents–our residents are safe and well served. As costs must not be downloaded on municipalities, AMM supports the FCM's call for a full one third – 33 per cent of total annual excise tax revenue collected on cannabis sales, that that be allocated to municipal governments to address municipal administration and policing costs.

The AMM also encourages the provincial and federal governments to support additional funding mechanisms to support costs incurred by municipalities should this excise tax revenue be insufficient to meet the costs. So, in closing, our goal is to foster and build a federal, provincial, and municipal partnership that effectively addresses the needs of Manitoba municipalities as well as ensures the safety of their residents through properly resourced administration and enforcement mechanisms.

We also remain ready to work closely w ith the Province of Manitoba and Manitoba's 137 municipalities to effectively manage this new and challenging cannabis regime. So thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and if you have any questions for me, I would be happy to answer them or do my best to answer them. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Groening, and we'll go on to questions for about five minutes, and we'll pass it over to Minister Stefanson about commenting on your presentation. Mrs. St efanson: Thank you, Mr. Groening.

I just wanted to thank you for coming out tonight and taking the time out of your

schedule and presenting, as you always do, very eloquently on behalf of AMM, and we very much appreciate your comments this evening. Mr. An drew Swan (Minto): Mr. Groening, thank you for coming out tonight. It's always a pleasure dealing with you, and I know you do a good job as vice-president of AMM. One of–your main concern is about the issue of the plebiscite. I know that last fall, before this bill was drafted and presented, municipalities were given a fairly short time frame to determine what they wanted to do about the prospective sale of cannabis in their communities.

Did that come about because of consultation with the government or was that something that was really sprung upon your members? Mr. Groening: The survey that was prepared with the consultation of the Province of Manitoba with appropriate departments offered all the municipalities and all municipalities did comment on

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 their position. There was about 100 that were in favour. There was a number of them that were opposed, and then there was also a few of them that said simply we don't have enough information. We'll wait and see for further details before we decide. It was a non-binding response. Mr.

Swan: If the minister was to tell you tonight that she was prepared to remove the sections regarding plebiscites and cannabis sales from the bill, your membership would be content with that, keeping in mind you would still like t here to be more consultation on how the revenue is going to be provided. Is that fair? * (19:10) Mr. Groening: It's very important and I appreciate that you mentioned the revenue component of our concerns in our presentation. That is absolutely essential and it's probably our primary concern.

We think that the details of establishing the retail centres will–I beli eve that will roll out in a more or less orderly fashion . We are not particularly concerned except for the potential for the divisive and the required plebiscites, and so I'm very clear, and we're very clear, in our request to have that removed from the bill. Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Any other further questions? Mr. Groening, thanks again for your presentation and answering these questions, and thanks for coming out tonight. Okay, we'll call the next presenter. And presenter No. 2 is Alan Campbell from Mani toba school board and association.

And Mr. Campbell wants to present all three bills –11, 25, and 26, all together at one time for his 10 minutes allocated. Okay? Is it agreed to the committee to do all three bills? [Agreed] Bill 11–The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended); Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places); Bill 26–The Impaired Driving Offences Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Chairperson: We'll start with Bill 11.

Is that the one that you have on your list first? Floor Comment: Yes. My statement applies to all three. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Campbell? Yes, go ahead. Okay, Mr. Campbell, go ahead with your presentation. Mr. Alan Campbell (Manitoba School Boards Association): Good evening. On behalf of the Manitoba School Boards Association, or MSBA, I would like to thank the committee for permitting us the opportunity to appear to address bills 11, 25 and 26.

For sake of brevity, I would request leave of the committee, which has been granted, to use this appearance to address all three cornerstones in Manitoba's cannabis decriminalization f ramework. While we are registered to speak to all three bills this evening, we do appreciate that time is of the essence, and so my remarks will remain brief. My name is Alan Campbell, and I am MSBA's vice-president for school boards with under 6,000 enrolments. We represent the 38 public school boards of Manitoba and are tasked with providing quality education for close to 185,000 students across this province.

Among our many mandates, school boards strive to provide youth with the opportunity to mature a nd develop in a safe, healthy learning environment, enabling them to achieve educational success. We strive to educate young people so that as adults, they are informed, conscientious and autonomous citizens. It is our intention that they will become citiz ens who will assume their position as active members in the development of Manitoba's communities.

Lastly, we remain committed to promoting the importance of our students' well -being and their ability to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of substance abuse. These core mandates speak directly to the kind of outcomes that we hope all students will embrace prior to and following their completion of high school. Because of these mandates, school boards remain grav ely concerned in the face of the decriminalization of cannabis. Through our national association, the Canadian School Boards Association, we have collectively voiced these concerns to Ottawa.

Notwithstanding, we do acknowledge that it is the intention of Canada's current government to so proceed. In this respect, Canada's provincial and territorial govern - ments have been called upon to develop much of the legal policy framework that will serve to guide the decriminalization process, and in this respect, our own local school boards will greatly benefit in terms

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 of what is being proposed under bills 11, 25 and 26 here in Manitoba. The government has been consultative with school boards on such significant matters as their proposed legal age for consumption, their proposed universal prohibition for–of the use of cannabis on or around school properties and a new set of provincial offences that will see the establishment of a parallel framework for cannabis in relation to drugged driving as currently exists w hen driving under the influence of alcohol impairment and intoxication.

There are many remaining considerations as Parliament moves to legalize marijuana from coast to coast. Here in Manitoba, however, many of our concerns have and will be addressed through the enactments of bills 11, 25 and 26. When added to the earlier cannabis harm reduction act that was introduced in the Manitoba Legislature, we sincerely appreciate the four -pronged approach that Manitoba has chosen to introduce. To be clear, our appearance here today should not be misinterpreted.

It remains our preference that all Manitobans should continue to strive for a drug-free society in which our nation's youth can continue to mature and develop in a safe, healthy learning environment and in w hich they as citizens continue to flourish and contribute to our future betterment as a community.

However, if it is the final judgment of Canada's Parliament that this harmful and risk -laden substance be made more widely available to the public into the f uture, then we as school boards do appreciate that at least in Manitoba, under the scope of bills 11, 25 and 26, a far greater number of criminal offences related to production, distribution, sale, possession and use of cannabis will be the actual outcome of the current proposal to decriminalize the drug. Several of these new offences also speak directly to the protection of our youth, and school boards therefore certainly appreciate such efforts.

We therefore encourage the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to attend to passage of bills 11, 25 and 26 as expediently as possible. We believe that it is incumbent upon all members of the Assembly to ensure that as many measures as possible will be introduced, especially those designated to protect our children, our students and our schools.

With a genuine spirit of collaboration between Manitoba's government, the municipalities and school boards, and with a centralized licensure framework that is to be implemented by the Liquor and Gaming Authority, we trust that all who have an interest in cannabis harm reduction will continue to work together in the years ahead to respect the letter and spirit of the laws that are being proposed by the government.

In this respect, that these three bills before the committee seek to address safe retail practices and processes, the prohibition of consumption in public places and enhanced criminalization of impaired driving, comes with Manitoba School Board's principled and non-partisan support. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank y ou, Mr. Campbell, for your presentation, and now do the members have any questions for the presenter? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much, Mr.

Campbell, for coming out and speaking on behalf of the Manit oba School Boards Association on these bills this evening. Very much appreciate you taking time out of your

schedule and indicating your organization's support for these. We very much appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Campbell, thank you for coming down and presenting tonight. Will your association be working on protocols for children who may be prescribed cannabis or cannabis products for medical reasons? Mr. Campbell: We have been consulting with our membership, as well as with existing regulations and legislation, and, as outlined, consulting with the government, go forward.

Our membership has expressed a clear interest in wanting to make sure that we will have everything we need in terms of resources and a frame work to speak to whatever the cases that you've outlined may be. Mr. Chairperson: Any other further questions from the committee? Mr. Campbell, thank you very much for your time, for your presentation, and for answering some of the questions, so thank y ou for coming out tonight. Bill 11–The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) (Continued) Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, we’ll go on to the next person from out of town. Is No. 5–is Michael Mailman–he's a private citizen. Is he here tonight?

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 Mr. Mailman, do you have any material to hand out? Okay, we'll get one of the staff members to deliver – distribute it. Mr. Mailman, go ahead with–proceed with your presentation. Mr. Michael Mailman (Private Citizen ): Good evening, honourable Chair, committee members, residents and guests. This opportunity to speak is greatly appreciated. Your time is very valuable; I realize that. I'd like to apologize for my weak voice.

I just had a gastroscopy yesterday morning and having a bit of trouble with it, so, by way of introduction, my interest in cannabis and reason for speaking are based on a serious illness and a passion for plants that heal. Cannabis has been a primary medicine for me now over 16 years. Over this time, I've become very intimate with the knowledge surrounding the plant and generally surrounding the laws that incorporate this plant.

It's very sad to see how many people are currently being put at risk for the rest of their lives due to the current legislation, and for that reason alone, I would stress that moving forward with this bill as promptly as reasonably possible would be suggested. * (19:20) I run a small vegetable plant nursery, and I sell fresh produce, both of which are excesses of my own personal garden needs. I'm a member of various local volunteer organizations, majority of which are gardening organizations.

In consideration of your time, I will not exhaust all the minute details of this bill, rather sticking to just a few important points. Disallowing cultivation of cannabis at a residence. The following is a recent test of home-growing risks in federal court by Justice Michael Phelan, known as Allard v. Canada. I'll directly quote Justice Phelan in his remarks: "I find that the evidence was insufficient and largely did not distinguish between legal cannabis growing operations under the MMAR and illegal growing operations.

Additionally, there was limi ted, if any, expert evidence that convincingly asserted that these risks exist across the country and to a magnitude that mandates state interference." "The Plaintiffs' rebuttal witness, Mr. Boileau, provided useful evidence that contextualized this risk under the MMAR regime. If in compliance with the Safety Standards Act, electrical installations at legal indoor marijuana grow facilities by MMAR licenc e holders are just as safe as any other electrical installation at any other type of facility.

For the specific health issue of toxic mould, "I find that although mould appears to be a valid concern, the evidence demonstrates that the concern is extinguished with a proper ventilation system. "I agree that the Plaintiffs have, on a balance of probabilities, demonstrated that cannabis can be produced safely and securely with limited risk to public safety and consistently with the promotion of public health.

I again emphasize that the object of restriction is not to eliminate the risk of health and safety but to reduce it, and on that conception, there are very simple measures that can be taken to minimally impact the

section 7 interests." Accepting that fire, mould, diversion, theft and violence are risks that inherently exist to a certain degree–although I note that these risks were not detailed–this significant restriction punishes those who are able to safely provide by abiding with local laws and taking simple precautions to reduce such risk. A complete restriction is not minimal impairment. As mentioned above, the mould, fire risks are addressed by complying with the Safety Standards Act and installing proper ventilation systems.

Further, as demonstrated by the Plaintiffs, a security system reduces the risk of theft and violence. Finally, risk of diversi on is also present in the licensed production regime; thus, it is not demonstrated how this restriction has the effect of reducing this risk. I'm sure many of you have already understood these concepts. And the trouble that many Manitoba residents are fac ing is not understanding why we would go against the federal government's decisions.

The idea behind public safety and saving our children is of the utmost importance, but I have a hard time, as do many others, understanding who we're saving by taking four cannabis plants out of the home. Residents of Manitoba would rather be regulated and informed of best practices, as is currently the case in the medical program, the ACMPR; the state of Colorado, and will be the case in majority of Canada, pending passage of Bill C-45. Disallowing home cultivation will not stop the practice; rather, it will exacerbate the risks involved.

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 Local greenhouses, garden centres, garden clubs, communities and hydroponic shops have expressed interest in offering courses and workshops related to safe, cost-effective and efficient growing practices. Disallowing residential cultivation greatly inhi - bits growth in the private sector as well. One hydroponic shop had to put a stop on an order for a complete grow closet under 16 s quare feet. This was intended to be marketed to people who quite likely will now not follow the law.

They won't have access to learning materials at garden centres, they won't have access to electricians and ventilation systems because these things are hard to come by when doing things illegally and these are the reasons that illegal grow operations will cause the risks that we are considering. Four plants does not make a grow op. That's a quote from Senator Ratna Omidvar discussing Bill C-45 in the Senate on April 30th, 2018. Manitoba has a vibrant gardening community which deserves to be extended the privilege of growing a few cannabis plants for adult use.

Many seniors who have helped shape this beautiful province have shown great interest. Not all can afford to purchase fresh, local and organic tomatoes. Meanwhile, most prefer not to go through the hassle of caring for that tomato plant daily when retail options are available. Home cultivation would open the door to an important conversation with youth concerning the risks of cannabis. Households currently mitigate risks of other adult -only items such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, et cetera. Cannabis becomes psychoactive only once harvested and dried.

The cannabis while growing produces a THC acid which is a raw acid, non-psychoactive precursor to the THC cannabinoid. The risk is therefore much the same as product obtained from licensed retail outlets. All of these should be kept in a locked cabinet, as is already currently being done in most households with alcohol, prescription medications and medically recommended cannabis. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mailman, you have one more minute left. Mr. Mailman: I'll wrap up right there. I've left a few sources for–from my information at the bottom and I'm open to any questions. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Mr.

Mailman, thank you very much for your presentation. We'll go –if the committee has some questions, then we'll pass it on to Minister Stefanson. Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney Gene ral): Just want to thank you, Mr. Mailman, for coming out tonight, taking time out of your schedule. I know this is an issue that you're very passionate about , and I just want to thank you for your presentation tonight. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Mailman, I want to thank you for your presentation.

As you know, the provincial government has the ability either to accept the federal law, which is four plants per person, or another number. Manitoba and Quebec have both chosen to go zero. If I understand your presentation, you're saying that banning home cultivation completely is going to have unintended consequences. Can you just elaborate on that a little bit more for the committee? Mr. Mailman: Yes, absolutely, I believe that it's going to have unintended consequences. First of all, I think the concept of a plant count is ill -conceived.

I think it has very little to do with the actual quantity of cannabis that can be harvested from a crop of cannabis. In fact, the square footage would be a much greater way of determining this factor and perhaps with proper consultations, our government could sit down and understand exactly what it is that we're trying to allow people to do, so as to suggest that we're not going to have people with 2,000-square-foot gardens in their residential areas.

Rather, you know, a 16- square-foot or 25-square-foot garden is quite common for very many folks who have no interest in participating in illegal activities and also have no ability to afford such high prices that can and will be placed upon them. * (19:30) Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions from the committee? Mr. Mailman, thank you very much for coming out, for your presentation, answering questions and coming out here tonight. Thank you. Okay, we'll go on to next person from out of town is Will Stewart. He's with Hiku Brands, vice-president of corporation communication and public affairs. Mr.

Stewart, do you have any materials that you want to hand out?

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 Mr. Will Stewart (Hiku Brands): I don't. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Go ahead with your presentation, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart: Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me here this evening. As you mentioned, my name's Will Stewart, vice-president of corporate communications and public affairs for Hiku. Hiku is a –one of Canada's first fully integrated cannabis companies. We have a retail footprint currently with nine stores across Canada that sell coffee and do cannabis education as well as sell cannabis paraphernalia called Tokyo Smoke.

Tokyo Smoke is one –is fortunate enough to be awarded one of the four conditional master licences to open nine to 16 stores in the province of Manitoba. So we're very thankful for the opportunity for us to be able to conduct business here in your province, and we look forward to working with you co-operatively into the future. I've spent the last number of years as a consultant in the public affairs space, consulting mainly in the cannabis space for about four years. With that, I've worked with a numbe r of the licensed producers across Canada.

I sit as a member of the board of advisers for Lift Cannabis or Lift & Co. They put on a series of cannabis expos as well as have ACMPR strain reviews and promote cannabis education for people who choose to consum e it. I'm also a regular speaker on cannabis issues from coast to coast, fortunate enough to be presenting to you this evening, and I will be presenting to the Senate as part of their committee hearings on Bill C -45 in a couple of weeks as well. As I ment ioned before, Hiku is a brand management company. Tokyo Smoke will be very active in Manitoba. We very much look forward to opening those stores.

We also have two licensed producers. We have DOJA out of the Okanagan Valley, which is a small -scale craft can nabis producer. We also have WeedMD, which we've recently announced a merger with, out of southwestern Ontario. Together, by about mid -2019, we'll produce 56,000 kilograms of cannabis ourselves, which we will use, of course, to stock our stores as well as stores where we're not allowed to–as well as provinces where we're not allowed to operate in, like, Ontario, Quebec and most of the eastern Canadian provinces that have chosen a different model for cannabis retail.

We also have a female- centric cannabis b rand, started by April Pride, who's a 40 -year-old mother who felt that there was nothing in the cannabis space that actually spoke to her. She started Van der Pop, a female-centric education and cannabis brand as well. And we recently closed on another tra nsaction to acquire a high -end paraphernalia company out of Montreal. When we do get around to opening our stores here, we will obviously be following Bill 11 both to the letter and the spirit of the law. We will be starting with stores in Manitoba.

I wanted to come here tonight and take far less than my 10 minutes to say that we actually support Bill 11. We believe that Manitoba has taken a reasoned approach to the retailing of cannabis both from a freedom for the private sector but with the necessary government oversight that the people of Manitoba likely expect. We've done extensive public opinion polling across Canada which does show Canadians expect government oversight on this substance as it is not a benign substance, of course.

We find that th e good balance that you've come up with here in Manitoba strikes the right tone in terms of allowing that private -sector creativity to bring stores at no cost to the government as well as different business models that speak to different parts of the canna bis culture sector, and there are many different types of cannabis consumers across Canada. Having those private -sector stores here allows different business models to test out who their customers really are. We've had a great working relationship with many of the regulators in the province already so far.

We, of course, have submitted many of our products to be carried by the Manitoba government agency which will then be sold into the stores, and we look forward to continuing to do more on that space. Our stores–we'll start with four, up to four, in Winnipeg, once we are allowed to do so, as well as stores across other, smaller municipalities in order to support the government's objective of having both a rural and an urban footprint for cannabis stores t o hopefully help stamp out the black market that I know is also one of your objectives.

We've been working co-operatively with those municipalities and having discussions about how to integrate into their communities in an effective and reasoned way that supports local interests. At the end of the day, we will likely have 85 to 95 full- time-equivalent employees within the province that'll be working for us in our retail business and, I should mention, our

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 online business as well, which we seek to participate in as well. We have–don't have any concerns with the legislation as it's written. I'm happy to take questions as they come. We do have questions about the legislation, which we expect to have answered by the regulators through a policy

interpretation of some of the things that are in the legislation, so we're not too anxious about that, and that's where I will leave my comments this evening. Thank you for your work. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Stewart, for your presentation, and we'll go on to que stions, and I'll pass it on to Minister Stefanson. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you, Mr. Stewart, for being here tonight, for your presentation, and we very much appreciate your thoughts on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns ): Miigwech for your presentation.

I am curious, in Winnipeg, you mention that you're going to have four locations. And where are you presently looking at those locations to be? Mr. Stewart: We will have up to four locations. The most recent guidance from both the government and the City of Winnipeg is that we will be allowed up to four. So I don't want to presuppose that we'll be approved for all four. I'm not at a point where we're ready to disclose where we're going to have them, but our stores are primarily geared at urban professionals in a–with higher than average disposable income. So we're looking for heavy foot -traffic areas.

We're looking for areas that would typically support an entertainment district, that type of thing. Ms. Fontaine: So my colleague here indicates that you also mentioned that you're going to be targeting women in some of your advertising for particular cannabis products. I'd love to hear a little bit more about that. Mr. Stewart: Yes, just –not that we'll be targeting women with our products. We have a brand solely dedicated to the woman cannabis consumer called Van der Pop. It was founded by April Pride.

She was a 40 -year-old mother of two who was a cannabis consumer, felt that most of the cannabis culture and cannabis experiences that she had had did not speak to her as a woman. She started her own brand that we were fortunate enough to acquire. She is still with us and promoting that brand. It is the leading female cannabis brand in the space right now that focuses on education as well as on products, and an example of a female -centric product would be a nice leather purse that is also smell proof that you can keep your cannabis in when you're out and about. Ms. Fontaine: So just one more final question.

I do note that you had mentioned about, you know, moving towards the elimination of a black market. I am curious, though, if you juxtapose t hat you are kind of moving towards, you said, I think, more-income individuals, how do you see that kind of navigating between–I mean, those folks, I don't think, would necessarily be going to, maybe, their street corner, anyway. So how do you feel that that's going to work in kind of eliminating the black market? Mr. Stewart: Yes, let me answer that in two ways, if I can. Our business model is clearly focused on the urban person.

That doesn't mean that all the other business models for other cannabis stores are focused on the same demographic. Currently, we operate seven coffee stores in Canada, most of which are in Toronto. Five of them are in Toronto, and where we are at our best is where we have lots of foot traffic with a variety of backgrounds of peopl e from both incomes and ethnicities. Through that, we've been able to reach already 500,000 people through our storefronts, and that includes purchasing coffee, but it also includes some of our education programs, et cetera.

We think that by educating and informing and providing an experiential retail environment, we will have customers that continue to come back to us simply because it is a better experience to purchase cannabis through our storefronts than it is, as you say, the guy down the street. Ove r time, I think people will start to migrate to retail environments. That's our assumption; we may have it totally wrong, and where we will find out is when we start to open stores in a legalized environment. Mr. Chairperson: If there's no other further questions, Mr.

Stewart, I want to thank you for coming out with your presentation and the questions you answered and thank you–thanks for coming again tonight.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 Bill 25–The Non-Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Products Amendment Act (Prohibiting Cannabis Consumption in Outdoor Public Places) (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, now we'll go on to the next persons from out of town for Bill 25. May we get the ministers–no, still Justice. Sarah Hopkins [phonetic], she's with Canadian Cancer Society. So we'll let the ministers have some time to – and if you have materials to pass around, Ms. Hopkins [phonetic]. Okay. You're–proceed with your presentation, Ms. Hopkins [phonetic]. * (19:40) Ms.

Sarah Hawkins (Canadian Cancer Society) : Thanks for having me today, members of the Standing Committee on Justice. My name is Sarah Hawkins, and I am a health policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society here in Manitoba. The Canadian Cancer Society is a national community-based organizatio n of volunteers with a mission to eradicate cancer and enhance the quality of life of people living with cancer. Cannabis legalization has the potential to impact both cancer incidence rates and cancer treatment options and is thus an important issue for us and for the people we serve.

While there is relatively limited evidence of any direct link between long- term cannabis use and cancer, evidence suggests a significant link between cannabis use and tobacco use, which is the leading cause of –leading preventable cause of chronic disease in Manitoba. Studies show that up to 90 per cent of cannabis users are also tobacco users and that cannabis use during adolescence and early adulthood is associated with increased risk of tobacco use and nicotine dependence. With significant effort in the last 30–or 50 years, tobacco use has declined dramatically in Manitoba.

Smoking cannabis in public places has the potential to renormalize smoking behaviour and derail much of the progress we've made in tobacco reduction. And that is why the Canadian Cancer Society supports and commends the Manitoba government for introducing Bill 25. This prohibition on cannabis consumption in outdoor public places will significantly reduce the potential for cannabis legalization to renormalize public smoking. We strongly hope that the precedents of this bill will lead to further expansions of 100 per cent smoke -free outdoor spaces throughout Manitoba.

During this opportunity to address amendments to an important piece of legislation, I woul d like to touch on a few additional areas where the law could and should be enhanced. These three areas include the co -location of retail stores, flavoured products and water pipes. I would also like to mention at least one way that the Canadian Cancer Society is interested in partnering with the government of Manitoba to ensure optimal social benefit from the cannabis laws currently under consideration. Cannabis and tobacco are two of the most commonly used psychoactive substances in the world.

Approximat ely 17 per cent of Canadians currently use tobacco products. When last surveyed, 12 per cent of Canadians used cannabis at some point during the previous years. According to the World Health Organization, Canadian youth have the second highest cannabis use rates in the world. Co-use or mixed use of cannabis and tobacco is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse health effects compared with using cannabis alone. Tobacco and cannabis use may act as behavioural cues for increased use of eith er substance.

Evidence shows that tobacco users who smoke cannabis are more likely to relapse when attempting to quit using tobacco. Consequently, any increase in overall cannabis use resulting from legalization may increase tobacco use, particularly among youth. For these reasons, we strongly encourage the Manitoba government to help prevent mixed use by ensuring that cannabis stores are not co- located with stores that are licensed to sell tobacco. In fact, we recommend a minimum setback distance between cannabis stores and any tobacco or liquor stores in order to discourage mixed use.

We further encourage the government to ban the sale of cannabis products mixed with tobacco and ban the sale of products such as tobacco blunt wraps. In 2014, the Manitoba government introduced an amendment to The Non- Smokers Health Protection Act aimed at banning flavoured tobacco products. That bill has yet to be proclaimed. Despite some progress at the federal level, several tobacco products are still available in Manitoba in flavours that are particularly attractive to youth. If the bill remains unproclaimed, a new market of flavoured cannabis products will be given an

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 opportunity to flourish. Since the flavourings bill was originally introduced, several other province s have implemented flavouring bans that go far beyond Manitoba's bill. I encourage this new government to take a hard look at that dated piece of legislation and put their own stamp on it. Don't just proclaim it but strengthen it so that kids in Manitoba a re granted the same protections that so many of their peers in other provinces have been afforded. And please do so with urgency so that we stamp out flavoured cannabis products before the market takes root. And, as you consider amendments to

an act intended to protect non- smokers, we strongly encourage you to consider immediately closing a loophole in the ban on smokers –smoking in indoor public places. This loophole relates to water pipes and hookah lounges. Public venues designated for smoking water pipes are becoming more widespread, exposing many Manitobans, including hospitality workers, to dangerous and toxic levels of second-hand smoke while enticing youth to experiment with alternative forms of smoking. The products consumed using a water pipe are often referred to as shisha, which can contain tobacco, cannabis or blends of other herbs.

These products are moist, heavenly–heavily flavoured and contain either honey or molasses. A typical session of water -pipe smoking is approximately 45 minutes long, performed in groups, and results in burning and smoking about 20 grams of shisha. Depending on the product and smoking pattern of the user, water -pipe use can produce significant levels of nicotine, carbon monoxide, tar and other heavy metals. A water -pipe smoker may inhale as much smoke in a one -hour session as someone is – who has inhaled 100 or more cigarettes.

Establishments offering water pipe use in indoor public places exist because they claim to offer tobacco-free shisha products which do not fall under the definition of smoking regulated in the non- smoker's health protection and vapour production– products act. In practice, however, it's very hard to monitor and regulate the products being smoked in order to be sure of what they contain. Further, th ere is the potential for prospective cannabis lounge operators to demand a similar exemption to allow smoking indoors.

The water pipe exemption is not only difficult and expensive to regulate, but it sets a bad precedent. Both the first -hand and second- hand smoke produced by water pipe use contains known carcinogens at levels equal to or greater than other tobacco products. People who are around water pipe smoke are at risk of the same negative health outcomes seen from being exposed to second- hand tobacco smoke even if only herbal water pipe products are used. The social nature of water pipe use has also contributed to the spread of communicable disease.

For these reasons, water pipe use in public places has been banned in countries where use has flouri shed for centuries including Turkey, Syria and Kuwait. The United Arab Emirates also bans cafes and restaurants from serving water pipe products. Second-hand smoke exposure is a major preventable contributor to acute and chronic adverse health outcomes t hat affect all Manitobans. Legislated smoking restrictions protect citizens and workers from the negative health effects of second-hand smoke exposure in public places and workplaces.

Water pipe use in hookah bars and restaurants denies protection to Manitoba workers. The herbal water pipe loophole should not exist. In order to protect the health and safety of all Manitoba workers, it should be illegal to smoke water pipes in bars and restaurants regardless of the nature of the product being consumed. Finally, I would like to address the potential for partnerships related to smoking in multi -unit housing.

With a 'blan' –ban on public outdoor cannabis smoking, we would hope that the majority of Manitobans choosing to smoke cannabis would do so on private pr operty outdoors, but this will not always be the case, and it is likely that indoor smoking will increase. This is of particular concern in multi -unit housing where it's virtually impossible to keep second-hand smoke from migrating from one unit to the next. Currently, 30 per cent of Manitoba ns live in multi -unit housing. This includes close to 20,000 households with kids, and more than 40,000 households maintained by senior citizens.

The median income of Manitobans living in multi-unit housing is roughly half the median income of those in single -detached homes, and even lower where the household is maintained by seniors. This population group has a disproportionality high level of vulnerable people. All Manitobans deserve options so that they are not involuntarily exposed to second- hand smoke in

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 their homes. Well-developed smoke-free policies can give all residents options to be safe and healthy without denying anyone access to cannabis use. In a smoke -free building, we recommend that alternative cannabis consumption options including vaping and other non- combustible forms of consumption be permitted. Property managers need to be educated about smoke-free policy development, implementation and enforcement. More work needs to be done to ensure that smoke -free options exist in all housing sectors.

The Canadian Cancer Society, in collaboration with other health stakeholders, is interested in partnering with the government of Manitoba to ensure t hat residents and property managers in multi-unit housing are properly engaged and empowered in the wake of cannabis legalization. In closing, the Canadian Cancer Society commends the Manitoba government for the policy direction presented in Bill 25 and i n other cannabis-related policies to date. As you regulate cannabis, we encourage you to continue to take tobacco regulation equally seriously.

While you have The Non- Smokers Health Protection and Vapour Product Act open for revision, please consider additional amendments related to the co -sales of tobacco and cannabis products, banning flavoured products, and banning water pipe use in indoor publ ic places. Strong, complementary policies for both cannabis and tobacco will prove to be the easiest to enforce and the most beneficial for public health. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Hawkins, for your presentation. And now we'll go on to questions from the committee, and we'll pass it on to the Minister Goertzen. Hon.

Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living ): Thank you, Sarah, for your presentation and for all the work that you and others do at the Canadian Cancer Society fundraising and the variety of things that you do. And of course, we see you in community with volunteers and do incredible work in terms of awareness and prevention. * (19:50) So you've left us with a lot of different –or left me, for sure, with a lot of different thoughts, and I appreciate you bringing up the concern about mixed use, and statistics between the prevalence of youth who would both use tobacco and cannabis.

That's interesting, in terms of education and where we might go with that type of education in the future. I will commit to you to look again at the issue of flavoured tobacco. I know that there was some rethought on it when the federal legislation was being developed, but I commit that I'll go back and take a lo ok at that to see if there's other things that can be done in Manitoba. On the issue of hookah bars and water pipes, as mentioned in a previous presentation, there are regulatory abilities to close loopholes or to make changes within this act, and so that can be considered as well.

And I share your concern on the multi -unit housing and ensuring that we don't have unintended consequences from the legislation. So those are active discussions that we're having within the department as we move forward and looking at different regulations that might come forward. And certainly this part of the legislative process and hearing feedback is a big part of that consultation. So thank you very much for that. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Thank you, Ms. Hawkins, for pre senting on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society. Hopefully, I'll have time for two questions.

The first is that I know we were successful, largely from advice from the Canadian Cancer Society and other partners, in reducing youth tobacco use in Manitoba . I think all members of this committee are concerned about ensuring that the youth don't start or continue using cannabis. Is there some advice you can give the government on the best strategies to provide education and information for young people? Ms. Hawkins: Wow. Advice? You definitely have to commit funds. That would be the main thing I think I would mention.

Partnering–there's a lot of NGOs out here that are definitely interested in partnering, especially when financial support is available from the government. Be in the schools. But, I mean, all of those things considered, tobacco and cannabis are very similar but they're also unique products that do need to be handled differently. The severity of the addiction of tobacco products is one of the reasons why we really feel that

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 it needs to be forefront when it comes to talking to children and youth about products or about any substance abuse. Mr. Swan: Okay. I got time. I thank you for your comments about smoke-free multi-unit housing and some of the complexities. I represent a big chunk of the inner city of Winnipeg where people, quite frankly, do not necessarily have access to private property outdoors. One of the suggestions you brought forward is that maybe there should be the ability for peopl e who want to use cannabis to have other non- combustible forms of consumption–edibles.

When this bill passes, unless and until the government moves ahead to bring in regulations, edibles are not going to be permitted in the province of Manitoba. So are you encouraging the government to think about that issue and perhaps move ahead to allow edibles, which avoids some of the challenges of smoking? Ms. Hawkins: I wouldn't push the government to move any faster than they need to on that issue because I know it is incredibly complex. Another option I think that's more readily available would be the option to vape cannabis products.

Again, the research is not entirely 100 per cent out on the health safety of vaping, but it's pretty –the evidence suggests that it is–the second-hand vapour or emissions that come from vaping a cannabis product would be significantly less harmful to –second-hand–people inhaling those products than a traditional combustible product would be. So I think that would be our initial recommendation, would be to make sure that those are accessible. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Hawkins, thanks for coming out tonight and presenting and asking our questions. Thank you.

Bill 11–The Safe and Responsible Retailing of Cannabis Act (Liquor and Gaming Control Act and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Act Amended) (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, now that we have–we've actually gone through all the out -of-town presenters, we're going to start –we'll have musical chairs again, the ministers, and we'll go on to Bill 11. The third person on the list was Lorne Weiss. He was with Manitoba Real Estate Association. Mr. Weiss, do you have any materials to hand out? Mr. Lorne Weiss (Manitoba Real Estate Association): I do. Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, we'll get one of our staff to hand them out. Mr. Weiss, you can proceed with your presentation. Mr. Weiss: Thank you very much and good evening and thank you to the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight. My name is Lorne Weiss, and I am the current chair of the Manitoba Real Estate Association's political action committee. Just a bit of quick background for the committee members on the Manitoba Real Estate Association – or, as we refer to it, MREA –MREA represents over 2,100 real estate professionals in the province of Manitoba.

Our mission is to lead and empower real estate excellence through edu cation, professional standards, advocacy and related services for realtors and the public that they serve. I also think it would be valuable for committee members to know just how big an impact home sales have on the Manitoba economy. Over 6,500 jobs are created by home sales in Manitoba. The spinoff spending from each home sale is over $50,000. Cumulatively, those home sales add up to an economic impact of $770 million annually, equivalent to over 1 per cent of Manitoba's GDP.

While this bill is primarily aimed at consumers, legalization of recreational cannabis will have a host of impacts on all of our Manitoba families. The Manitoba Real Estate Association supports Bill 11, and we strongly support the zero tolerance policy for home growing in this bill . Quebec will also be banning recreational home growing, as home growing comes with a host of risks and hazards. For clarity, the federal limits are not four plants for a year per house; the limits are four plants per crop. You can grow several crops a year. For example, some cannabis strains are ready for harvest in 10 weeks.

This means you could get five crops in one year. There are also no limits on plant size. One crop with four plants could yield up to 600 grams of useable cannabis. With up to five crops a year, you could grow almost seven pounds –or, three kilos –of cannabis in a year. For comparison's sake, the average medical marijuana dosage, according to Health Canada, is one to three grams a day. At the

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2018 highest end of that range, that is less th an two and a half pounds, or a little over one kilo a year. A recreational grower with four plants could therefore grow more than double or triple the amount needed for the average medical marijuana dosage. Allowing for home growing enables for someone to grow a lot of cannabis, to put it mildly. The Canadian Medical Association has identified several potential health risks with home cultivation, such as high humidity and temperatures, risk of fire and the use of pesticides.

In regards to fire risks, sometimes homes are rewired to bypass the high electrical bills. A City of Ottawa staff report indicated this patchy electrical work makes a fire 40 times–40 times–more likely in a home. Chemicals used to produce cannabis can also be harmful to humans. These chemicals can get left inside residences and can potentially mix with re-vented air from furnaces or water heaters, leading to the buildup of poisonous gases. Regular growing of cannabis also leads to mould, spores and fungus in a home, increasing chances of respiratory and other illnesses.

Mould can start growing within 28–24 to 48 hours if there is excess moisture in a home, and one cannabis plant produces the same amount of moisture as seven houseplants. Health Canada places indoor air quality as one of the most important elements in maintaining a healthy home. Also, in regards to Health Canada regulations, medical growers require government approval to grow cannabis, restrict what pesticides can be used, and they must keep their grow rooms and canna bis under lock and key. Such quality control measures won't be in place for home growing, which creates a much higher health and safety risk.

Children may have–might have access to the plants, and there's a lack of quality control for potency. There can also be severe financial implications of home growing. There are virtually no remediation standards for former drug-production homes. Cost to properly remediate a former grow op can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, I'll echo what you 've heard earlier this evening, we must consider the impacts of home growing on multi-family dwellings. Most multi -family units are smaller in size, increasing the damages and risks brought on by the increased humidity and mould.

The costs for repairing a unit used to grow cannabis will be passed on to the other tenants, which will drive rents up, decreasing affordability. In addition, the strong odours may impact other tenants' quality of life. Also, many seniors and young families with children live in multi -residential units. Children and seniors are more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, and we must be cognizant of the air quality in multi -family buildings.

Also, I don't think that anyone wants their child growing up beside a grow op or having thei r parents spend their retirement years beside one. * (20:00) The Insurance Bureau of Canada calls any marijuana grow operation a high- risk activity. There are examples where even after remediation and bringing former grow ops up to building code standards, families were still denied home insurance. This applies on the lending side as well, as many lenders are very reluctant to finance former grow ops. If allowed, home growing could have massive effects on our housing stock.

In Denver, where home growing is legal, police estimate that one out of every 10 homes is now being used to grow cannabis. Growing one plant at home is one plant too many. Realtors want to be a part of the solution to these potential issues. Legalization of recreational cannabis is new ground for all of us, and MREA has several options that we urge the committee and the Legislature to explore as they move forward. Realtors must have the tools necessary to inform families on the largest investment decision of their lives.

MR EA strongly believes that prospective home buyers should be knowledgeable about cannabis-related activities that have occurred within homes for sale. We would also recommend the establishment of clear provincial remediation standards for homes previously used to produce drugs, including cannabis. We encourage the provincial government to ensure that the home growing ban is strictly enforced. This will require co -ordination with municipal police forces, and we anticipate that the enforcement of home growi ng could be a challenge.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is opposed to home growing and have stated that law enforcement's ability to enforce home growing is very limited, and they are concerned about diversions to the black market. The Associ ation of Chiefs of Police has also labelled the electrical and fire hazards posed by home growing as a risk to first responders. In addition, they point out that home

May 8, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 growing runs counter to efforts to minimize the exposure and access of youth to cannabis. All of this underscores how illegal growing at home shouldn't be taken lightly. We can't treat illegal growing with a slap on the wrist. Penalties need to be severe in order to discourage illegal home growing. To summarize, the Manitoba Real Estate Association supports Bill 11. We strongly support the home growing ban.

Despite the ban, risk still exists, and we need to ensure that people are properly protected and informed about homes that were previously used to grow drugs such as cannabis. Clear remediation standards need to be set as well, and there needs to be strict penalties for those found guilty of home growing. I would like to thank the committee members for taking the time to listen to the Manitoba Real Estate Association's position on this iss ue of great importance

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-ju1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf ju1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	47a4fa7565ff488ea7e6863ee96ff336adf87f69

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).