Workplace Policies and Canadian Cannabis Rights: a Policy Learning Comparison for Windsor
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Major Papers Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers 2019 Workplace Policies and Canadian Cannabis Rights: A Policy Learning Comparison for Windsor Clarence Jesse Market University of Windsor, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/major-papers Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Market, Clarence Jesse, "Workplace Policies and Canadian Cannabis Rights: A Policy Learning Comparison for Windsor" (2019). Major Papers. 73. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/major-papers/73 This Internship Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in Major Papers by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Workplace Policies and Canadian Cannabis Rights: A Policy Learning Comparison for Windsor By Jesse Market An Internship Paper Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies through the Department of Political Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada 2019 © 2019 Jesse Market Workplace Policies and Canadian Cannabis Rights: A Policy Learning Comparison for Windsor By Jesse Market APPROVED BY: ______________________________________________ J. Sutcliffe Department of Political Science ______________________________________________ C. Collier, Advisor Department of Political Science January 11, 2019 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY I hereby certify that I am the sole author of this thesis and that no part of this thesis has been published or submitted for publication. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, my thesis does not infringe upon anyone’s copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques, quotations, or any other material from the work of other people included in my thesis, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practices. Furthermore, to the extent that I have included copyrighted material that surpasses the bounds of fair dealing within the meaning of the Canada Copyright Act, I certify that I have obtained a written permission from the copyright owner(s) to include such material(s) in my thesis and have included copies of such copyright clearances to my appendix. I declare that this is a true copy of my thesis, including any final revisions, as approved by my thesis committee and the Graduate Studies office, and that this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other University or Institution. iii ABSTRACT Although cannabis became a legal recreational drug under federal law in Canada, Windsor has no Fit for Duty or Accommodation policies at the time this paper is being written. Because of this, an opportunity for policy learning emerges. In this policy learning comparison, the policies in the American municipality of Salem, Oregon, will be juxtaposed to those of Essex County. The policies to be examined will be those whose subject matter is most relevant to the issue of cannabis in the workplace, the Fit for Duty policy and the duty to accommodate policy. Salem was chosen due to its location, being in Oregon where recreational cannabis has been legalized, and its population similarity to Windsor, amongst others. Essex County was chosen due to its close proximity to Windsor, in addition to a shared workforce providing a strong case for comparison. This paper finds that Essex County contains accommodation considerations in their policies that would be beneficial for Windsor to consider in the midst of cannabis legalization in Canada. Additionally, Salem’s testing protocols to ensure overall employee and employer safety in the workplace are beneficial for Windsor to consider as well. The transfer of these aspects into Windsor’s workplace policies is recommended based on the research provided. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHOR'S DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................ iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION- SETTING UP THE COMPARISON .......................... 1 Measure 91 ..................................................................................................................... 8 The Federal Canadian Cannabis Act ........................................................................... 10 The Ontario Cannabis Control Act .............................................................................. 11 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW- GUIDING THE COMPARISON .................. 13 Policy Learning Literature Theme: Policy Learning and Transfer .............................. 14 Accommodation Literature Theme: The American and Canadian Divide .................... 16 Fit for Duty Literature Theme A: Employee Health and Safety ................................... 18 Fit for Duty Literature Theme B: Accommodations and the Workplace Environment . 19 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 26 Comparative Case Selection ......................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER FOUR: COMPARING THE POLICIES .............................................................. 30 The City of Salem: Testing Protocols ............................................................................ 30 The City of Salem: Accommodation Considerations ..................................................... 31 The County of Essex: Testing Protocols ........................................................................ 32 The County of Essex: Accommodation Considerations ................................................. 33 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION ................................................................ 35 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 40 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 57 VITA AUCTORIS ................................................................................................................... 58 v LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A- Oregon Secretary of State: Measure 91 Appendix B- Three Types of learning and policy change, 1992 Appendix C- Fit for Duty Sample- OHS Insider, 2018 Appendix D: Salem’s Drug Testing Protocols vi CHAPTER ONE: Introduction- Setting up the Comparison As of October 17, 2018, recreational cannabis use was legalized in Canada. Provincial legislation regarding recreational cannabis for Ontario was updated on October 29, 2018, and, upon legalization, many concerns arose surrounding the medicinal or recreational use of cannabis, and which type of environment was appropriate for each. Yet, to date, Windsor has not established workplace policies in terms of fitness for duty or accommodation that are often developed to integrate cannabis and its potential use and impact in the workplace. This information is also not yet available on the city’s website. For many municipalities, by-law and policy information is available on the municipality’s website for all citizens to view, such as on the Town of Tecumseh’s website1. This is interesting considering the fact that other municipalities have already enacted workplace cannabis policies, prior to or on the exact day recreational cannabis became legalized. The question that arises is why would a city as large as Windsor not presumably be pre- emptively prepared in the workplace for a major policy announcement such as the legalization of recreational marijuana? While an answer to this question is beyond the scope of this paper, it nonetheless provides us an opportunity to examine some of these relevant other municipalities to see what Windsor can learn from those examples. The medical use of marijuana has been legal in Canada since 2014 and has subsequently been available in a variety of forms including smoking, vaporization, edible oils, capsules, liquid drops, edible foods spray oil or cream (Legislative Services Branch, 2018). These methods of consumption and the conditions needed for each employee to 1 See for example, The Town of Tecumseh, Frequently Asked Bylaws 1 have access to medicinal cannabis will vary, bringing the conversation into one of workplace accommodations. According to the Ontario government’s multi-year accessibility plan to address all people with disabilities (including those that are not treated with medicinal cannabis), “by 2035, 40% of our consumer base [(Canadians)] will be people with disabilities” (The Path to 2025: Ontario’s Accessibility