AGENDA Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:00 P.M

1 of 113 AGENDA Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers at the Nanton Fire Hall, 2503 – 21 Avenue

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

1.1 Call to Order

1.2 Adoption of Agenda (Res)

2. PRESENTATIONS:

2.1 Oldman River Regional Services Commission, Gavin Scott – Cannabis legislation for Land Use Bylaws 7:05 – 7:15 p.m.

2.2 Benchmark Assessor – Carol Megaw 7:15 to 7:25 p.m.

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:

3.1 ADOPTION:

3.1.1 Regular Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2018 - E 3.1.2 Services Committee Meeting Minutes – April 19, 2018 - E 3.1.3 Special Meeting Minutes of April 23, 2018 – E

4. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

4.1 2018 Tax Rate Bylaw - E 4.2 Town of Nanton Organizational Structure – E 4.3 Closure of Bulk Water Plant - E 4.4 Update on Pool Repairs - E

5. CORRESPONDENCE:

5.1 FOR ACTION:

5.1.1 Proclamation of June 3 – 9, 2018 as Seniors’ Week in the Town of Nanton - E

5.2 FOR INFORMATION:

5.2.1 Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) Newsletter, “Contact”, April 13, 2018. 5.2.2 Digest of AUMA/AMSC News, April 18, 25, 2018.

6. REPORTS:

6.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: 6.1.1 Council Follow Up Action List – E

1 of 2 2 of 113

7. IN CAMERA:

7.1 Personnel – FOIP Section 17(4)(d),(f)

8. ADJOURNMENT:

2 of 2

3 of 113

AHS Recommendations on Cannabis Regulations for Alberta Municipalities

Prepared on behalf of AHS by: Dr. Gerry Predy, Senior Medical Officer of Health/Senior Medical Director – Population, Public and Indigenous Health

The following includes information and recommendations that will help municipalities make cannabis policy decisions that promote and protect the health of its citizens. Alberta Health Services (AHS) supports an evidence-informed public health approach (Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada, 2016) that considers health and social outcomes in the development of municipal cannabis policies and bylaws. Lessons learned from tobacco and alcohol have also been used to inform these positions.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Where evidence is incomplete or inconclusive, AHS is advising that a precautionary approach be taken to minimize unintended consequences. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of Federal Taskforce on the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis (Government of Canada, 2016).

Business Regulation & Retail  Limit the number of cannabis stores, and implement density and distance controls to prevent stores from clustering, while also keeping buffer zones around well-defined areas where children and youth frequent.  Consider requirements for cannabis education and community engagement as part of the business licensing approval process.  Limit hours of operation to limit availability late at night and early morning hours.  Restrict signage and advertising to minimize visibility to youth.

Consumption  Ban consumption in areas frequented by children.  Align the cannabis smoking regulations with the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act and/or with your municipal regulations, whichever is more stringent.  Ban smoking, vaping and water pipes in public indoor consumption venues.

Home growing  Design a process to ensure households and properties are capable of safely supporting home growing.

Multi-Unit Housing:  Health Canada (2017) has recommended a ban on smoking in multi-unit housing. AHS recognizes that there are potential health risks associated with second-hand smoke within multi-unit housing environments and therefore recommends municipalities consider bylaws that ban smoking in multi-unit housing.

Research and Evaluation  Ensure mechanisms to share data across sectors and levels of government are established, and appropriate indicators are chosen to monitor the impacts of policy implementation on communities.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 1

4 of 113

DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections provide evidence and additional details for each of the above recommendation areas.

Overall Overall, AHS encourages municipalities to proceed with caution for two reasons. First, there is little reliable and conclusive evidence to support what safe cannabis use looks like for individuals and communities. Second, it’s easier to prevent future harms, by removing regulations in the future once more knowledge exists, than it is to later add regulation. (Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, 2015; Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada, 2016). Evidence shows commercialization of alcohol and tobacco has resulted in substantial population level morbidity and mortality as well as community level harms. This is of particular importance because adding cannabis use to a community adds multifactorial relationships to already existing social issues, as we know co-use or simultaneous use of cannabis, alcohol and/or tobacco, in some kind of combination is common (Barrett et al. 2006; Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, 2007; Subbaraman et al. 2015). For example, simultaneous use of alcohol and cannabis has been found to approximately double the odds of impaired driving, social consequences, and harms to self (Subbaraman et al. 2015). According to AHS treatment data, of those using AHS Addiction Services, more than half used cannabis, and of those who use cannabis, 90% have used alcohol and 80% have used tobacco (Alberta Health Services, 2017). Further evidence indicates that legalization of cannabis may have negative impacts related to resource utilization, law enforcement and impaired driving cases, and self- reported cannabis-related risk factors and other substance use (Health Technology Assessment Unit, 2017).

Business Regulations & Retail Sales

Location and Number of Stores Alberta Health Services recommends municipalities strengthen zoning regulations by using a combination of population and geographic based formulas to restrict the number and location of cannabis outlet licenses. In particular AHS recommends that municipalities:  Limit the number of business licenses issued in the first phases of implementation.  Implement a 300-500m minimum distance restriction between cannabis retail outlets  Implement a 300m distance between cannabis stores and schools, daycares and community centers.  Implement a 100m minimum distance from tobacco and liquor retailers, in addition to a square kilometer density restriction, adjusted for population, at the onset of legalization.  Note: additional analysis may be needed to ensure that unintended consequences do not negatively impact existing communities (e.g., clustering, social and health harms, vulnerable populations). Between 1993 (just before privatization) and 2016, there was a 600% increase in the number of liquor stores in Alberta (208 stores in 1993, 1,435 stores in 2016). Privatization has also resulted in drastic product proliferation, with an increase from 2,200 products in 1993 to 23,072 products in 2016 (AGLC, 2016). Without more restrictive cannabis regulations, business owners will demand and industry will deliver a greater variety of cannabis products, likely resulting in an expansion of consumption in communities across Alberta. U.S. researchers predict a doubling of consumption rates over time as a result of legalization, which means an estimated 40 billion more hours of intoxication in the US (Caulkins, 2017). A privatized system without initial restrictive regulation will likely follow similar trends in Alberta, resulting in significant health and social impacts on communities.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 2

5 of 113

Density limits reduce neighbourhood impacts and youth access (Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, 2015; Freisthler & Gruenewald, 2014). Research on alcohol and tobacco use highlights the need for stronger controls on density and minimum distances (Ammerman et al., 2015; Chen, Gruewald & Remer, 2009; Livingston, 2011; Popova et al., 2009; Rowland et al., 2016;) For example, the physical availability of medicinal marijuana dispensaries impact current use and increase frequent use (Morrison et al., 2014). Similarly with liquor stores, higher densities are associated with high-risk consumption behaviours–especially among youth, facilitating access and possession by adolescents, as well as increased rates of violence and crime (Ammerman et al., 2015). In addition, U.S. researchers have found that medical cannabis outlets are spatially associated with market potential which points to a form of “environmental injustices in which socially disadvantaged are disproportionately exposed to problems.” Therefore, jurisdictions should ensure that communities with fewer resources (e.g., low income, unincorporated areas) are not burdened with large numbers of stores and prevent clustering among liquor, tobacco and cannabis stores (Morrison et al., 2014). Other US research shows that zoning laws for location are an effective way to prevent overpopulation of cannabis stores in undesirable areas (Thomas & Freisthler, 2016). Summary tables of some US state and city buffer zones can be found in Nementh and Ross (2014).

It is clear that locating cannabis stores away from schools, daycares and community centers is essential to protecting children from the normalization of Cannabis use (Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017). Therefore, municipalities should ensure that all provincially recognized types of licensed and approved childcare options are included in their regulations. For example, daycare facilities, account for 39.9% of licensed childcare spaces in the province. Pre-schools, out-of-school programs, family day-homes, innovative child care, and group family child care programs account for the remaining 60% of licensed child care in the province.2 Through business licensing and zoning, municipalities have the opportunity to protect all childcare spaces by including these locations in local buffer zones. Many preschools and childcare facilities are already located in strip malls or community associations or churches adjacent to liquor outlets (bars or liquor stores). Cannabis stores should not be allowed to be located within a buffer zone of any type of childcare facility or school. AHS also suggests that municipalities include other places that children and youth frequent as part of minimum distance bylaws such as parks, churches, and recreation facilities (Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, 2015; Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017).

Business/Development License Application Processes AHS suggests that a cannabis education component and community engagement plan be added to the application processes for retail marijuana business licenses. As cannabis legalization is complex, there are many new legal implications, and potential health and community impacts. Potential business owners should demonstrate a base knowledge of cannabis safe use and health harms, as well as the new rules. It is also important to foster a healthy relationship between cannabis retailers and the community with the common goal of healthy community integration. The City of Denver has implemented a community engagement requirement where applicants must list all registered neighborhood organizations whose boundaries encompass the store location and outline their outreach plans. Applicants must also indicate how they plan to create positive impacts in the neighbourhood and implement policies/procedures to address concerns by residents and other businesses (City of Denver, 2017).

Municipalities are encouraged to require applicants to outline proper storage and disposal of chemicals, as well as proper disposal of waste products. In addition, applicants should outline how they will be managing odor control to prevent negative impacts on neighbours.

Hours of Operation AHS recommends restricting hours of operation as a means to reduce harms to communities (Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017). In regards to alcohol-related harm, international evidence on availability indicates that AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 3

6 of 113

longer hours of sale significantly increase the amount of alcohol consumed and the rates of alcohol related harms (Griesbrecht et al., 2013). The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests restricting alcohol sales to 9 business hours per day, with limited availability late at night and in the early hours of the morning (D’Amico, Miles & Tucker, 2015). Most regulations in the US legalized states limit hours of operation to 10pm or midnight (California, 2017; Oregon, 2017; State of Colorado, 2017; Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, 2017). AHS recommends limiting the number of and late night/early morning hours of operation for cannabis stores (Griesbrecht et al., 2013; Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017).

Advertising and Signage AHS recommends that municipalities include policy/bylaw considerations to limit advertising to dampen favorable social norms toward cannabis use (D’Amico, Miles & Tucker, 2015). Further, while it is important to implement the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (i.e., the physical space should be well lit, tidy, include proper parking etc.), the physical appearance should not encourage or engage patrons. A similar policy has been implemented in Denver, Colorado. This approach is supported by a large body of evidence related to alcohol and tobacco. (Joseph, et al., 2015; Hackbarth et al., 2001; Lavack & Toth, 2006; Malone, 2012).

Consumption

AHS recommends that municipalities align their regulations with the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act. In addition, municipalities may also want to consider enacting bylaws that consider banning tobacco-like substances such as shisha.

AHS recommends that municipalities implement regulations banning consumption in public places, as well as for public intoxication (see Alberta Liquor and Gaming Act). The rationale for this is two-fold: (i) cannabis is an intoxicating substance and should therefore be treated similarly to alcohol, and (ii) harms related to second and third-hand smoke, especially for children and youth. Second-hand cannabis smoke is more mutagenic and cytotoxic than tobacco smoke, and therefore second-hand inhalation of cannabis should be considered a health risk (Cone et al., 2011; Health Technology Assessment Unit, 2017; Maertens, White, Williams & Yauk, 2013).

Special attention should be directed at banning consumption in areas frequented by children, including: all types of parks (provincial, municipal, athletic parks, baseball, urban, trails/pathways, etc.), playgrounds, school grounds, community centers, sports fields, queues, skateboard parks, amphitheaters, picnic areas and crowded outdoor events where children are present (i.e., all ages music festivals, CFL football games, rodeos, parades, Canada Day celebrations, outdoor festivals, outdoor amusement parks (private), golf courses, zoos, transit and school bus stops, ski hills, outdoor skating rinks or on any municipal owned lands) (Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017). Public consumption bans should also be enacted for hospitals (all points of health care, urgent care clinics, clinics, etc.), picnic areas (alcohol limits for outdoor consumption). Currently, consumption of tobacco and tobacco-like products is not permitted on any AHS property.

Venues for consumption Until adequate evidence-based rationale can be provided, AHS does not support having specific venues for indoor consumption (smoking, vaping, water pipes) as this would expose people to second-hand smoke, promote renormalization of smoking, reverse some of the progress made with public smoking bans, and present occupational health issues (i.e., second and third hand smoke exposures, and inadvertent intoxication of staff and patrons).

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 4

7 of 113

Home Growing

AHS recommends households interested in personally cultivating cannabis go through a municipal approval process and that owners have access to reference educational materials related but not limited to: mitigating child safety, security, water use, electrical hazards, humidity, and odor concerns. These materials will help ensure the property is capable of safely supporting home growing and help reduce the negative impacts to surrounding properties (Rethinking Access to Marijuana, 2017). While allowing citizens to grow cannabis plants at home may provide more options for access, there are risks to public health and safety. Further, as Bill 26 currently reads, as it pertains to personal cultivation, municipalities can expect an increase in nuisance complaints. Cannabis is also known to be a water and energy intensive crop, as such; this impacts municipalities in a number of ways (Bauer et al., 2015; Cone et al., 2011; Health Technology Assessment Unit, 2017; Mills, 2012). For example, personal cultivation brings risks related to air quality, ventilation, mold, odors, pests, chemical disposal, indoor herbicide/pesticide use, increased electrical use and fire risk, and accidental consumption. Further, all of these risks are amplified when children are present in the home and/or multi-unit dwelling. In Colorado, it is estimated that one-third of the total cannabis supply comes from personal cultivation as permitted to medical cannabis users (Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015). As such, municipalities alongside AHS should anticipate requiring additional resources as a system cost to be able to adequately respond to public health and community nuisance complaints. Furthermore there may be additional municipal human resource needs, as well as an increase in hazards, as it relates to indoor personal cultivation, impacting departments like waste services, fire, police and bylaw services. Finally, additional building codes and safety codes may be required in order to effectively manage and address hazards pertaining to heating, ventilation and air cooling systems, as well as building electrical.

Multi-Unit Housing Existing tools for managing the issue of cannabis consumption and personal cultivation in multi-unit housing will likely not be sufficient to manage this issue. It will be important to recognize the negative health effects of second and third-hand smoke and risks related to personal cultivation when considering municipal regulations for multi-unit housing.1 Other changes that are needed to address both indoor consumption and personal cultivation in multi-unit housing include:  additional building codes and safety codes to effectively manage and address hazards pertaining to heating, ventilation and air cooling systems, as well as building electrical,  appropriate language in bylaws as they pertain to alcohol and/or public intoxication. Health Canada (2017) has recommended a ban on smoking in multi-unit housing. AHS recognizes that there are potential health risks associated with second-hand smoke within multi-unit housing environments and therefore recommends municipalities consider bylaws that ban smoking in multi-unit housing. Finally, as mentioned above, AHS Environmental Public Health is not currently in a position to effectively respond to the anticipated number of nuisance complaints received if smoking cannabis is allowed in multi-unit housing, both in terms of staffing, as well as in terms of enforcement. AHS encourages municipalities to plan for additional human resources if pre-emptive measures are not considered.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 5

8 of 113

Additional Considerations

Education and Awareness Evidence-informed public education and consistent messaging will be critical for promoting and protecting health of citizens. Many areas of education and awareness will be needed including: new/amended bylaws and regulations, home growing rules, and health impacts. As messages are developed it is important that municipalities, along with other stakeholders provide balanced, factual and unsensational messages about cannabis use and its impacts on communities (Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015).

Public education alone is only effective at creating awareness in a population. Comprehensive, multi-layered strategies that include social normative education, harm reduction, fact based information and targets multiple environments and populations should be used (Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada, 2016). As municipalities move through this process it is important to note that public education should not be used as a substitute for effective policy development with strong regulations to protect communities from harms.

Capacity to Administer and Enforce Regulatory frameworks are only successful if there is the capacity to implement them. Other jurisdictions have reported significant human resource needs to administer new regulations. For example, the City of Denver added over 37 FTEs across sectors including administration, health-related issues, public safety, and inspections (Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015).

Research and Evaluation Moving forward, Alberta Health Services would like to strengthen their partnerships with municipalities to set up data sharing mechanisms between sectors. A key lesson learned from some US jurisdictions is to ensure mechanisms to share data across sectors are established (i.e., public health, transportation, public safety, seed- to-sale tracking, finance, law enforcement) (Freedman, 2017). This has been shown to help identify problematic trends sooner and more efficiently. Further, AHS encourages municipalities to advocate for provincial legislation to support data sharing and system integration. Lessons learned from Washington State and Colorado indicate that baseline data was difficult to come by. Therefore, it is recommended that all levels of government and school boards review data collected and wherever possible separate variables that relate to cannabis use from other aggregate level data.2 Further, monitoring impacts will be important to determine if policy goals are being met and to identify unintended consequences more quickly.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 6

9 of 113

Notes 1 (a) Health Canada has recommended a ban on smoking in multi-unit housing. (https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/programs/future-tobacco-control/future-tobacco-control.html). (b) Real scenario: Consider a mom with 2 young children in an apartment complex. A neighbour is (legally) smoking pot in their suite. It is coming into her suite and believes it is negatively affecting her and her 2 small children. She is on a limited budget and does not have the resources to move. The landlord tells her that the neighbour is doing nothing wrong and police advise her there is nothing illegal about it. She has read the public health information and knows about the potential harms of cannabis. She then calls the municipality. Municipalities will need to have mechanisms in place to handle the potential increase in cannabis-related calls and mitigation strategies to address the complaints.

2 Many preschools and childcare facilities are already located in strip malls adjacent to liquor outlets (bars or liquor stores). Cannabis stores should not be allowed to be located within a shopping complex that has any type of childcare facility.

Childcare programs in Alberta as of June 2017 Type # of % of # of programs/locations % of % of regulated spaces programs locations spaces Day care 47,155 39.9% 842 18.8% 33% Day home 11,773 10.0% 67 agencies with est. 1,962 locations 3% 43.8% (Based on 6 children per home) Pre-school 17,699 15% 686 27% 15.3% Out of School 40,817 34.6% 958 37% 21.4% Innovative childcare 604 0.5% 22 1% 0.5% program Group family 40 0.03% 5 0% 0.1% childcare program Total 118,088 4,475 Government of Alberta, Ministry of Children’s Services, Early Childhood Development Branch. (2017). Q1 Early Childhood Development Fact Sheet, June 2017. Retrieved October 16, 2017.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 7

10 of 113

References Alberta Health Services. (2017). Provincial Addiction & Mental Health treatment data. Retrieved Dec 2017. Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission. (2016). Quick Facts: Liquor retailing in Alberta – Before and after privatization. Retrieved from https://aglc.ca/sites/aglc.ca/files/aglc_files/quickfacts_liquor.pdf Ammerman, S., Ryan, S., Adelman, W. P., Levy, S., Ammerman, S. D., Gonzalez, P. K., … O’Brien, R. F. (2015). The Impact of Marijuana Policies on Youth: Clinical, Research, and Legal Update. Pediatrics, 135(3), e769– e785. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-4147 Barrett, S., Darredeau, C., and Pihl, R. (2006). Patterns of simultaneous polysubstance use in drug using university students. Human Psychopharmacol Clinical Exp, 21, 255–263. Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., & Leppig, G. (2015). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on aquatic habitat in four northwestern California watersheds. PloS one, 10(3), e0120016. California. (2017). Bureau of cannabis control proposed text of regulations. Retrieved from http://www.bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/bcc_prop_text_reg.pdf Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, (2015). Cannabis Regulation: Lessons Learned in Colorado and Washington State. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2007). Substance Abuse in Canada: Youth in Focus. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Caulkins, J. (2017). Recognizing and regulating cannabis as a temptation good. International Journal of Drug Policy, 42, 50-56. Chen, M. J., Gruenewald, P. J., & Remer, L. G. (2009). Does alcohol outlet density affect youth access to alcohol? Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(6), 582-589. Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network. (2016). Public health perspectives on cannabis policy and regulation. Available from http://uphn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chief- MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final-Sept-26-2016.pdf Cone E., Bigelow G., Herrmann E., et al. (2011). Nonsmoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke. III. Oral Fluid and Blood Drug Concentrations and Corresponding Subjective Effects. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 39(7), 497-509. D’Amico, E. J., Miles, J. N., & Tucker, J. S. (2015). Gateway to curiosity: Medical marijuana ads and intention and use during middle school. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 613. Freedman, A. (August, 2017). Impact of legalization. Presentation made at the 2107 National Cannabis Summit. Denver, CO. Freisthler, B., & Gruenewald, P. J. (2014). Examining the relationship between the physical availability of medical marijuana and marijuana use across fifty California cities. Drug and alcohol dependence, 143, 244-250. Giesbrecht, N., Wettlaufer, A., April, N., Asbridge, M., Cukier, S., Mann, R., McAllister, J., Murie, A., Plamondon, L., Stockwell, T., Thomas, G., Thompson, K., & Vallance, K. (2013). Strategies to Reduce Alcohol-Related Harms and Costs in Canada: A Comparison of Provincial Policies. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 8

11 of 113

Hackbarth, D., Schnopp-Wyatt, D., Katz, D., Williams, J., Silvestri, B. and Pfleger, M. (2001). Collaborative research and action to control the geographic placement of outdoor advertising of alcohol and tobacco products in Chicago. Public Health Reports, 116(6), 558-567. Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP-Cannabis-Evidence-Series- 2017.pdf Lavack, A., and Toth, G. (2006). Tobacco point-of-purchase promotion: examining tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control, 15, 377-384. Lee, J., Henriksen, l., Rose, S., Moreland-Russell, S. Ribisl, K. (2015). A systematic review of neighborhood disparities in point-of-sale tobacco marketing. American Journal of Public Health 105(9), e8-e18. Livingston, M. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of alcohol outlet density and domestic violence. Addiction, 106, 919-925. Maertens R., White P., Williams, A., and Yauk C. (2013). A global toxicogenomic analysis investigating the mechanistic differences between tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates in vitro. Toxicology, 308, 60-73. Malone, R., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. (2012). Tobacco industry denormalization as a tobacco control intervention: A review. Tobacco Control, 21(2), 162–170. Mills, E. (2012). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy Policy, 46, 58-67. Morrison, C. Gruenewald, P, Freisthler, B., Ponicki, R., & Remer, L. (2014). The economic geography of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(3), 508-515. Oregon. (2017). Recreational marijuana: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/bcc_prop_text_reg.pdf Popova, S., Giesbrecht, N., Bekmuradov, D., Patra, J. (2009). Hours and days of sale and density of alcohol outlets: Impacts on alcohol consumption and damage: A systematic review. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 44(5), 500-516. Rethinking Access to Marijuana (2017). RAM Policy Manual: Marijuana Regulation and policies for cities. http://www.lacountyram.org/uploads/1/0/4/0/10409636/policymenu_ram_jan2017_final2.pdf Rowland, B., Evans-Whipp, T. E., Hemphill, S., Leung, R., Livingston, M., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2016). The density of alcohol outlets and adolescent alcohol consumption: An Australian longitudinal analysis. Health & Place, 37, 43-49. State of Colorado. (2017). Retail marijuana rules. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites /default/files/Complete%20Retail%20Marijuana%20Rules%20as%20of%20April%2014%202017%20with %20DOR%20Disclaimer_1.pdf Subbaraman, M. and Kerr, W. (2015). Simultaneous versus concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis in the national alcohol survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(5), 872–879. Thomas, C. and Freisthler, B. (2016). Examining the locations of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. Drug Alcohol Review, 35(3), 334-337. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. (2017). Frequently asked questions about marijuana rules. Retrieved from https://lcb.wa.gov/mj2015/faqs-rules

AHS Recommendations – Municipal Cannabis Regulations February 20, 2018 9

12 of 113

PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVES ON CANNABIS LEGALIZATION IN ALBERTA

Written Submission to: Alberta Cannabis Secretariat Submitted on behalf of AHS by: Dr. Gerry Predy, Senior Medical Officer of Health/Senior Medical Director–Population, Public and Indigenous Health Date: July 31, 2017

PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH

Alberta Health Services (AHS) supports an evidence-based public health approach to the development and implementation of legislation for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Alberta. This means promoting and protecting the health of Albertans, and considering the impact on the health of our most vulnerable populations.

A public health approach strives to maximize benefits and minimize harms of substances, promote the health of all individuals of a population, decrease inequities, and ensure harms from interventions and legislation are not disproportionate to harms from the substances themselves. 1 The outcome of a public health approach (see Figure 1) shows how health/social harms and supply/demand are related. Harms related to substances are at a maximum when governance and control are at the extremes. Lower harms occur when a public health approach is used.

Figure 1. “The Paradox of Prohibition” Marks (1990) 1

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 1

13 of 113

Legalizing cannabis without considering the key elements of a public health approach is likely to result in greater social and health harms. Key considerations when developing policy from a public health lens includes:  Minimizing harm o Consider the risks of cannabis use including the risks of harms to youth, risks associated with patterns of consumption (e.g., frequent use, co-use with alcohol and tobacco, harmful routes of consumption, consumption of concentrated products, increases in proportion of population consuming), and risks to vulnerable populations (e.g., youth, people with mental health problems, pregnant women, socio-economically disadvantaged populations).  Protecting the health and safety of Albertans o Carefully consider evidence related to the public consumption of cannabis, workplace safety, and the scientific and legal issues associated with impaired driving.  Preventing the likelihood of use and problematic use o Ensure early and on-going public education and awareness that seeks to delay use by young people, and prevent normalization.  Assessing population health outcomes o Include baseline understandings of current situation; potential impact of policies and programming; disease, injury and disability surveillance (effects on society).  Providing services o To assist those who are most at risk of developing or have developed substance use issues, expand access to treatment and prevention programs. o Consider the ongoing public health costs and ensure that public health programs are adequately resourced to address the risks.  Addressing the determinants of health and health equity o Consider issues of social justice, racism, human rights, spiritual and cultural practices, as well as populations vulnerable to higher risk of cannabis-related harms. o Complete a health equity impact assessment to ensure unintended consequences of legalization are minimized.

It is also critical to begin conservatively and establish more restrictive regulations as it is very difficult to tighten regulations once in place. As there is little research on the impact of legalization on health and social outcomes, proceeding cautiously with implementation will help ensure that the promotion and protection of the health and safety of Albertan remains the priority.

As recommended by the Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada, 1 the overarching goal to this legislation should be to improve and protect health—maximizing benefits, minimizing harms, promoting health, and reducing inequities for individuals, communities and society. This goal needs to be applied at every stage of the policy development process.

HARMS OF USE

While there is evidence that there is less impact on public health than alcohol and tobacco, cannabis still has significant health risks which include increased risk of some cancers, mental health issues, and

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 2

14 of 113 functional changes (e.g., memory loss) as well as social effects such as impaired driving. 2,3,4 These health risks are more prevalent with frequent (daily or near-daily) and early age use. Recent research has reported significant increases in marijuana-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and calls to the regional poison center following legalization of marijuana in Colorado. 5 Many reports also identify cannabis use being associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle collisions. 6, 7, 8

In addition, there are disproportionate impacts among vulnerable populations that need careful consideration. Lower-risk guidelines for cannabis use should be adopted as outlined by Fischer et al. (2011)9 focusing on populations that are more vulnerable to poor health outcomes such as youth, those with lower literacy and education, as well as gender specific populations. These lower risk guidelines 10 have been endorsed by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine, Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health, and Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

Research and evidence related to cannabis-impaired driving, brain development, dependence, mental health, chronic diseases (respiratory and cardiovascular), co-disease, co-occurring other drug use, passive exposure to smoke, among other issues, should also be considered in the development of cannabis legislation and regulation. Some specific evidence includes:

 Brain development – evidence suggests using cannabis in early adolescence can cause adverse effects to the developing brain and are at greater risk for long term cognitive impairments. 11,12,13 While more research is needed in this area, there are reports that early, regular use is associated with higher risk of dependency, higher risk of health harms, and low levels of educational attainment. 14 ,15 ,16 ,17  Dependence – The risk of dependency is a concern. It is reported that the global burden of cannabis dependence was 13.1 million people in 2010 (0.20%), and that dependence is greater among males and more common in high-income areas (compared to low-income areas).18 In addition, researchers In the U.S. indicate that the prevalence of lifetime dependence is approximately 9% among people that had used cannabis at least once. 19  Chronic Disease – Consumption of combusted cannabis is associated with respiratory disease such as a chronic cough. Other significant concerns that require further research include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and lung cancer. Cannabis consumption, both inhaled and ingested affects the circulatory system, and there is some evidence associating cannabis with heart attacks and strokes.20  Mental health – Research suggests that cannabis users (mostly frequent and high potency use) are at greater risk of developing mental health problems such as psychosis, mania, suicide, depression, psychosis or schizophrenia. 21, 22 For example, it is reported that there is a 40-50% higher risk of psychosis for people with a pre-existing vulnerability than non-users. 23  Passive exposure – Second-hand cannabis smoke is more mutagenic and cytotoxic than tobacco smoke, and therefore second-hand inhalation of cannabis should be considered a health risk. 24, 25, 26  Driving -- Substantial evidence shows a link between cannabis use and increased risk of motor vehicle collisions. 27,28 More research is needed to understand the association between THC levels and impairment, thus any limits set should be re-evaluated as evidence becomes available. In

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 3

15 of 113

addition, concerns about the reliability of current roadside testing technology has been expressed by many organizations and researchers. As such, investment for research related to impairment testing technology should be included in the implementation plan. A public education campaign about the risk of driving after consuming or smoking any cannabis or while impaired will be critical throughout the implementation of this legislation. This will be particularly important for youth, as the Canadian Paediatric Society reports that cannabis-impaired driving is more common than alcohol-impaired driving and youth are less likely to recognize driving after consuming cannabis as a risk.29

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

Age of use. Researchers and public health organizations are in agreement—there is no safe age for using cannabis. Delaying use is one of the best ways to reduce the risk of harm to the developing brain. Scientifically-based minimum age recommendations are generally early-to-mid-20’s but also recognize that a public health approach includes consideration for balancing many variables related to enforcement, the illicit market and public acceptance. Some public health organizations recommend the minimum age be set at 21 and others recommend bringing alcohol, tobacco and cannabis in alignment. Experience with tobacco has shown that there is a higher impact on initiation by persons under 15 and age 15-17 when setting the minimum age of purchase and possession at 21 versus 19 (Institute of Medicine in US). With the U.S. states who have legalized cannabis, all have chosen age 21 for cannabis minimum age and three states and over 230 cities/counties have implemented age 21 for tobacco. Cannabis legalization represents an opportunity for Alberta to consider raising the tobacco and alcohol minimum age.

Packaging/labelling. Plain, standardized and child-proof packaging is recommended to decrease the appeal to young people and avoid marketing tactics that make cannabis use attractive. Labelling should include health warnings and clearly defined single serving/dose information.

Marketing and promotion. Evidence has shown that advertising has a significant impact on youth health risk behaviours, 30 therefore promotion of cannabis use should be banned. Restrictions for marketing and promotion should follow the Alberta Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act, with further consideration added such as movies, video games, online market, social marketing and other media accessible to and popular with youth. It is also important to note that language to describe cannabis can have a marketing affect. Therefore, as noted by the Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada, the term “recreational” should not be used as this infers that cannabis use is fun. A more appropriate term is “non-medical.”

Distribution and retail. A government controlled system of distribution and retail would be most effective to ensure that public health goals (not profit) are the primary consideration for policy development. Taxation and other price controls should be appropriate to limit consumption and off- set the illegal market. Tax revenues should be directed to support services impacted by legalizations including health, public safety, addictions and mental health services, prevention, and public

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 4

16 of 113

education. Co-location with alcohol or tobacco is not recommended and retail outlets should be non-promoting. Limits to density and location of retail stores is essential, including proximity to schools, community centres, residential neighbourhoods, youth facilities and childcare centres. While online and home delivery may be suitable for medical cannabis, there are many regulatory challenges and risks to public health for non-medical cannabis. Finally, training and education programs should be developed to ensure well-trained and knowledgeable staff. AHS is a key partner to help lead the development of this training.

Public consumption. The research regarding negative harms due to passive exposure of smoke is clear. 31,32,33 Passive exposure to cannabis smoke can result in a positive test for cannabis and sometimes causes intoxication. Therefore, public smoking and vaping should not be permitted. 34 It is recommended that regulations similar to the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act, which includes a ban on water pipe smoking in establishments and e-cigarette use in public areas. This also suggests banning cannabis lounges/cafes as these facilities would expose people to second-hand smoke, promote renormalizing smoking, present occupational health issues, and reverse some of the progress made with public smoking bans. Additional considerations to protect public health include exploring policy options to address smoke-free multi-unit housing.

Public education. Evidence-informed public education is critical to promoting and protecting the health and wellbeing of Albertans. The potential, particularly for youth, to hear “mixed messages” about cannabis use requires the development, implementation and evaluation of a more nuanced set of health promotion and harm prevention messages and interventions to support people in their decision-making around cannabis use.35 Alberta Health Services can play a major role in public education, applying its significant experience in developing and implementing education and awareness campaigns. It will be critical to work with partner organizations and audiences particularly youth and those who are current users of cannabis to implement evidence-informed health promotion messaging that includes (but not limited to): delay of use, effects of use/co-use, long-term impact, reliable information sources, harm reduction, edible versus smoking effects, pregnancy and effects on fetus, medical and non-medical cannabis differences, workplace safety, impaired driving, culturally appropriate messaging, health impacts and youth-focused messaging.

Addiction and treatment services. Strengthening treatment services for people with substance use issues and mental health disorders will be necessary as these treatment systems are already under resourced which in turn have significant health and social consequences. For example, the Alberta Mental Health Review in 2015 reported that almost half of Albertans said that at least one of their needs was not met when they attempted to get assistance for addiction and mental health issues. 36 It is anticipated that there will be an increase in demand to address problematic cannabis use and for that reason investments in evidence-based interventions will be needed. 37,38 It will also be necessary for those who use cannabis for medical purposes to have access to accurate, reliable information such as indicators, adverse effects, methods of use and risk reduction.

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 5

17 of 113

ASSESSMENT, SURVEILLANCE AND RESEARCH

Currently, reliable cannabis-related research and evidence is limited. Therefore, dedicated funding and resources will be needed to ensure proper monitoring and surveillance, and improve the body of research and evidence related to cannabis use and the impact of legalization.39

While there have been several other jurisdictions who have recently implemented legislation to legalize cannabis, many have faced significant challenges in implementing effective evaluation programs. Lessons learned from these jurisdictions will be critical to determining baseline measures and selecting indicators for ongoing surveillance.40 A consistent approach, working across all provinces and territories, is central to measuring impact and providing comparable data. 41,42 In Canada, there have already been some efforts to establish this coordinated approach including Health Canada’s Annual Cannabis Use survey and Canadian Institutes for Health Research’s (CIHR) catalysts grants. Not only is this national view important, but a provincial collaborative approach is needed. This would require a coordinating body to ensure municipal, provincial and federal research and evaluation efforts are well-coordinated.

OTHER RECOMMENDED REPORTS/POSITIONS

It is highly recommended that the Alberta government considers the information and recommendations from the following:

 Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network (2016) http://uphn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chief-MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final- Sept-26-2016.pdf

 Toronto Medical Officer of Health (2017) http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-104495.pdf

 Canadian Public Health Association (2016) https://www.cpha.ca/sites/default/files/assets/policy/cannabis_submission_e.pdf

 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014) https://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/documents/camhcan nabispolicyframework.pdf

 Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Non-Therapeutic-Marijuana-Policy- Brief-2014-en.pdf o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned- Report-2015-en.pdf o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-National-Research-Agenda-Non- Medical-Cannabis-Use-Summary-2017-en.pdf

 Ontario Public Health Association http://www.opha.on.ca/getmedia/6b05a6bc-bac2-4c92-af18-62b91a003b1b/The-Public-Health- Implications-of-the-Legalization-of-Recreational-Cannabis.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf

 Canadian Paediatric Society http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/cannabis-children-and-youth

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 6

18 of 113

REFERENCES

1 Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network. (2016). Public health perspectives on cannabis policy and regulation. Available from http://uphn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Chief-MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final-Sept-26-2016.pdf 2 Lachenmeier, D. & Rehm, J. (2015). Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach. Scientific Reports, 5, 8126. 3 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2014). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto, ON. 4 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 5 Wang, G., Hall, K., Vigil, D., Banerji, S., Monte, A. and VanDyke, M. (2017). Marijuana and acute health care contacts in Colorado. Preventive Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed. 2017.03.022 6 Canadian Medical Association. (2016). CMA submission: Legalization, refulation and restriction of access to marijuana. Available from https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets- library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/2016-aug-29-cma-submission-legalization-and- regulation-of-marijuana-e.pdf 7 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 8 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from https://www.nap.edu/ catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state 9 Fischer, B., Jeffries, V., Hall, W., Room, R., Goldner, E., Rehm, J. (2011). Lower risk cannabis use guidelines: A narrative review of evidence and recommendations. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 102, 324-327. 10 Centre for Addictions and Mental Health. (2017). Canada’s lower-risk cannabis use guidelines. Available from http://www.camh.ca/en/research/news_and_publications/reports_ and_books/Documents/LRCUG.KT.PublicBrochure.15June2017.pdf 11 Grant, C., and Belanger, R. (2017). Cannabis and Canada’s children and youth. Adolescent Health Committee Paediatric Child Health, 22(2), 98-102. 12 Colizzi, M., McGuire, P., Pertwee R., and Bhattacharyya S. (2016). Effect of cannabis on glutamate signalling in the brain: A systematic review of human and animal evidence. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 359-381. 13 Sneider J., Mashhoon Y., and Silveri M. (2013). A Review of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Studies in Marijuana using Adolescents and Adults. Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, Suppl 4, Apr 24, 2013.

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 7

19 of 113

14 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 15 Broyd S., van Hell, H., Beale, C., Yucel, M., and Solowij, N. (2016). Acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition: A systematic review. Biological Psychiatry, 79(7), 557-567. 16 Ganzer, F., Broning, S., Kraft, S., Sack, P., and Thomasius, R. (2016). Weighing the evidence: a systematic review on long-term neurocognitive effects of cannabis use in abstinent adolescents and adults. Neuropsychology Review, 2016 Apr 28. 17 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2014). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto, ON. 18 Degenhardt L., Ferrari A., Calabria B., et al. The global epidemiology and contribution of cannabis use and dependence to the global burden of disease: results from the GBD 2010 study. PLOS One, 8(10), e76635. 19Anthony, J. Warner, L. and Kessler, R. (1994). Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: Basic findings from the national comorbidity survey. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2(3), 244-268. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=35DA38D018A4043EC56711AF95C47 871?doi=10.1.1.324.5323&rep=rep1&type=pdf 20 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the- current-state 21 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 22 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2014). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto, ON. 23 Moore T., Zammit S., Lingford‐Hughes A., Barnes T., Jones P., et al. (2007). Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: A systematic review. Lancet, 370, 319‐328. 24 Cone E., Bigelow G., Herrmann E., et al. (2011) Nonsmoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke. III. Oral Fluid and Blood Drug Concentrations and Corresponding Subjective Effects. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 39(7), 497-509. 25 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 26 Maertens R., White P., Williams, A., and Yauk C. (2013). A global toxicogenomic analysis investigating the mechanistic differences between tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates in vitro. Toxicology, 308, 60-73. 27 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from https://www.nap.edu/catalog /24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 8

20 of 113

28 Beirness, D. and Porath-Waller, A. (2015). Clearing the smoke on cannabis: Cannabis use and driving. Available from http://www.cclt.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Use-and- Driving-Report-2015-en.pdf 29 Grant, C., and Belanger, R. (2017). Cannabis and Canada’s children and youth. Adolescent Health Committee Paediatric Child Health, 22(2), 98-102. 30 Toronto Board of Health. (2017). Legal access to non-medical cannabis: Approaches to protect health and minimize harms of use. Available from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/ mmis/2017/hl/bgrd/ backgroundfile-104495.pdf 31 Cone E., Bigelow G., and Herrmann E., et al. (2011) Nonsmoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke. III. Oral Fluid and Blood Drug Concentrations and Corresponding Subjective Effects. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 39(7), 497-509. 32 Maertens R., White P., Williams, A., and Yauk C. (2013). A global toxicogenomic analysis investigating the mechanistic differences between tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates in vitro. Toxicology, 308, 60-73. 33 The Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Calgary. (2017). Cannabis Evidence Series: An Evidence Synthesis. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/AHTDP- Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf 34 Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network. (2016). Public health perspectives on cannabis policy and regulation. Available from http://uphn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Chief-MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final-Sept-26-2016.pdf 35 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2015). Cannabis regulation: Lessons learned in Colorado and Washington State. Available from http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA- Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf 36 Alberta Health. (2015). Valuing mental health: Alberta mental health review. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Alberta-Mental-Health-Review-2015.pdf 37 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2015). Cannabis regulation: Lessons learned in Colorado and Washington State. Available from http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA- Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf 38 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2014). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto, ON. 39 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2017). National research agenda on the health impacts of non-medical cannabis use. Available from http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA- National-Research-Agenda-Non-Medical-Cannabis-Use-Summary-2017-en.pdf 40Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2015). Cannabis regulation: Lessons learned in Colorado and Washington State. Available from http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA- Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf 41 Maslov, A. Lawrence, A and Ferguson, M. (2016). Cannabis performance metrics for policy consideration: What do we need to measure? Available from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-r009/2016-r009-en.pdf 42 Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network. (2016). Public health perspectives on cannabis policy and regulation. Available from http://uphn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Chief-MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final-Sept-26-2016.pdf

Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization in Alberta 9

21 of 113

A Public Health Approach1 to Cannabis Legalization

A public health lens to cannabis legalization also involves taking a precautionary approach to minimize unintended consequences. This precautionary approach helps minimize unintended consequences, especially when evidence is incomplete and/or inconclusive. In addition, , it is easier to prevent future harms, by removing regulations in the future once more knowledge exists, than it is to later add regulation. 1

 The outcome of a public health approach shows how health/social harms and supply/demand are related.  Harms related to substances are at a maximum when governance and control are at the extremes. Note that harms are similar to prohibition if commercialization/privatization is at the extreme.  Lower health and social harms occur when a public health approach is used. (Note: the curve doesn’t go to zero—there are always problems associated with substance use, but they can be minimized).  Legalizing cannabis without considering the key elements of a public health approach may result in greater social and health harms.

Key considerations when developing policy from a public health lens includes:  Minimizing harms  Protecting health and safety of citizens  Preventing the likelihood of use and problematic use  Assessing population health outcomes  Providing services  Addressing the determinants of health and health equity

Healthy Public Policy Unit January 2018 22 of 113

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

 Alberta Health Services – Public Health Perspectives on Cannabis https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6lL8pRONuu_UDB6WTBnU2lNRmc

 Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada & Urban Public Health Network (2016) http://uphn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Chief-MOH-UPHN-Cannabis-Perspectives-Final-Sept-26-2016.pdf

 University of Calgary Evidence Series https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/0239e5c2-5b48-4e93-9bcc-77f72f7bdc5e/resource/021d8f84-5d8b- 4e21-b0bb-81340d407944/download/AHTDP-Cannabis-Evidence-Series-2017.pdf

 The Federation of Canadian Municipalities https://fcm.ca/Documents/issues/Cannabis_Legislation_Primer_EN.pdf

 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014) o https://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/documents/camhca nnabispolicyframework.pdf o https://www.camh.ca/en/research/news_and_publications/reports_and_books/Documents/Pr ovincial%20alcohol%20reports/Provincal%20Summary_%20AB.pdf

 Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Non-Therapeutic-Marijuana-Policy-Brief-2014- en.pdf o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report- 2015-en.pdf o http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-National-Research-Agenda-Non-Medical- Cannabis-Use-Summary-2017-en.pdf

 Canadian Paediatric Society: http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/cannabis-children-and-youth

 Canada’s Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines http://www.camh.ca/en/research/news_and_publications/reports_and_books/Documents/LRCUG.KT.P ublicBrochure.15June2017.pdf

 Drug Free Kids Canada https://www.drugfreekidscanada.org/

 AHS Medicinal Marijuana Series https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4H2py77UNuXVGFm2qbI288PDA4LcJg9z

 Government of Alberta & Government of Canada o https://www.alberta.ca/cannabis-legalization.aspx o https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/legalizing-strictly-regulating-cannabis- facts.html

 Rethinking Access to Marijuana http://www.lacountyram.org/uploads/1/0/4/0/10409636/ram_cb_inlayout4.pdf

 Canadian Medical Association Journal: http://cmajopen.ca/content/5/4/E814.full

Key Contact: Michelle Kilborn, PhD AHS Cannabis Project Coordinator Email: [email protected] / Phone: 780-342-0294

Healthy Public Policy Unit January 2018 23 of 113 The Future of Cannabis in Alberta AGE LIMIT The rules around cannabis in Alberta once it is legal in summer 2018.

LICENSED GROWERS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT WORKPLACE Strictly regulated by the The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) directly Alberta is reviewing all existing federal government. manages how cannabis gets from the licensed grower to the retailer. regulations and programs to ensure rules continue to address impairment at work.

AGLC-OPERATED ONLINE SALES Age veriﬁcation occurs at point of sale and at delivery.

ADVERTISING Product advertising will only be allowed inside cannabis stores. DRIVING Police are able to suspend licences and PRIVATE CANNABIS seize vehicles if people drive impaired, RETAIL STORES including impairment by cannabis. May only sell cannabis and cannabis accessories. Minors are prohibited from entering cannabis stores, POSSESSION even if accompanied by Adults can possess an adult. up to 30 grams of legal PUBLIC CONSUMPTION HOME cannabis in public. Each household is allowed to grow up to four plants. Landlord and tenant agreements or condo bylaws OWNERS AND STAFF can be used to set rules for consumption and growing. Must undergo extensive background checks. Qualiﬁed employees must be 18 and Smoking and vaping cannabis are prohibited in areas undertake training. frequented by kids and other public places where smoking tobacco is prohibited. February 2018 alberta.ca/cannabis Jurisdictional Responsibilities 24 of 113

Responsible Activity Federal Provincial Municipal

Possession limits ** 

Trafﬁcking 

Advertisement & packaging ** 

Impaired driving  

Medical cannabis 

Seed-to-sale tracking system 

Production (cultivation and processing) 

Age limit (federal minimum) ** 

Public health  

Education   

Taxation   

Home cultivation (growing plants at home) ** 

Workplace safety 

Distribution and wholesaling 

Retail model 

Retail location and rules  

Regulatory compliance  

Public consumption  

Land use/zoning  Cannabis25 of 113 Legalization in Alberta Municipalities

With the federal government set to  The AGLC will regulate retail licensing and legalize cannabis this summer, Alberta licensees must follow rules set by government, which include where stores can has passed legislation that will meet be located, hours of operation, physical store that deadline, while also meeting the requirements, age of staff and staff training. expectations of Albertans. The  The maximum hours of operation for cannabis legislation, along with associated retail stores will be aligned with the limits for alcohol retail stores (10 a.m. - 2 a.m.). regulations, establishes overarching  Provincial regulations will establish minimum rules and guidelines for Alberta’s setback distances of 100 metres for cannabis cannabis system and provides stores from sensitive land uses, such as municipalities a significant role in schools and provincial health care facilities.

shaping how cannabis will be sold and Municipal role consumed within their communities.  Municipalities will continue to have the authority to set the development rules for new cannabis developments in their existing land Cannabis Consumption use bylaws, and to make decisions on development applications relating to cannabis Albertans who are 18 or older may smoke or vape retail locations. cannabis at home and in some public places, but  Municipalities will now also be responsible for not in vehicles, cannabis retail outlets, anywhere ensuring their land use bylaws are consistent smoking or vaping tobacco is restricted, or in with Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Regulation areas frequented by children, including school requirements for cannabis retail locations. and hospital properties and within five metres of  Municipalities will have discretion to vary skate parks, spray parks, and playgrounds. certain rules to be either more or less restrictive than the regulations set by the Municipal role province. For example:  Using existing authorities (i.e. bylaws), o Based on local requirements, municipalities may decide to place further municipalities could create more restrictive restrictions on where cannabis may be hours of operation for cannabis stores; or, consumed in public spaces within their o Establish shorter or further distances from community. sensitive use areas.  Where applicable, municipalities will also be Retail Sales for Cannabis responsible for granting development approvals and/or business licences to  Albertans may purchase cannabis products prospective cannabis retailers. Municipalities online through a website operated by the will need to develop appropriate application Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission processes, licence conditions and fees, and (AGLC). assessment criteria to ensure that cannabis  Albertans may also buy cannabis products retailers meet the needs of the communities in through privately owned and operated which they are located. specialized retailers.

alberta.ca/cannabis February 2018 26 of 113 Cannabis Legalization in Alberta Municipalities

Cannabis Production Enforcement and Impaired Driving  While the Alberta government is responsible  Federal, provincial and municipal for regulating the distribution and retail system governments will share responsibility for for non-medical cannabis, the federal enforcing cannabis-related offences. government will continue to be responsible for  The federal government has introduced developing, licensing and regulating cannabis legislation that makes changes to impaired production facilities. driving laws in the Criminal Code. It is working

on the approval of roadside screening devices  Health Canada will be responsible for that will assist law enforcement officers in enforcing matters related to regulating addressing drug-impaired driving. The Alberta licensed producers and cannabis production. government is continuing to work with the As with the existing retail approach to liquor, federal government to ensure there is the AGLC will be responsible for enforcing all adequate support for law enforcement training provincial rules and regulations related to the and equipment. retail sale of cannabis in Alberta.

Municipal role Municipal role  Municipalities will be responsible for enforcing  Municipalities will continue to be responsible municipal guidelines and bylaws created for establishing land use bylaws and within their jurisdiction (e.g. land use, public considering development applications related spaces, nuisance complaints, etc.). This to cannabis production facilities. includes areas where municipalities have  Municipalities will need to work with created rules above and beyond minimum prospective producers and the federal requirements set by the province. government to determine how production  Municipal police forces will continue to be facilities will be treated within their responsible for enforcing provincial and communities. federal laws related to cannabis possession  When considering how cannabis production and consumption, as well as impaired driving facilities in their jurisdictions should be and public safety. classified under the Alberta Building Code, municipalities can contact Alberta Municipal Affairs for advice as needed. Next Steps  The Alberta government will continue working closely with municipalities to ensure municipal governments are able adapt to cannabis legalization within their communities.  The Alberta government is in the process of finalizing our approach to cannabis taxation and exploring potential measures to address workplace safety issues and overall public education related to legalized cannabis.  .  For more information on cannabis and legalization, please visit www.alberta.ca/cannabis and www.aglc.ca/cannabis

You may also visit the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to learn more about how municipalities can prepare for legalization.

27 of 113

Municipal Guide to Cannabis Legalization

A roadmap for Canadian local governments

Spring 2018 28 of 113

Disclaimer This guide provides general information only. It is not meant to be used as legal advice for specific legal problems. This guide should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a lawyer licensed or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Information about the law in this guide has been checked for legal accuracy at the time of its publication, but may become outdated as laws or policies change. Links to non-FCM resources are provided for the convenience of readers of this guide. FCM does not create or maintain these non-FCM resources, and is not responsible for their accuracy.

© Federation of Canadian Municipalities. All rights reserved. Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, ON, K1N 5P3 www.fcm.ca 29 of 113 Rising to the local challenge of cannabis legalization

To municipal leaders and Building on last summer’s Cannabis Legalization staff across Canada, Primer, this guide offers policy options and prac- The nationwide legalization of tical suggestions for local rules and by-laws. And non-medical cannabis by the this roadmap was strengthened by technical and summer of 2018 presents financial contributions from your provincial and ter- major challenges for all orders ritorial municipal associations across the country. of government. As you forge ahead locally, FCM continues to And of course, municipalities form the order of advocate at the federal level for deeper engage- government closest to daily life and commerce— ment with municipalities. Municipalities also need building more livable communities, handling crises, new financial tools—and we’re making progress and doing what it takes to keep residents safe and on accessing a fair share of cannabis excise tax well-served. We are also very much on the front revenues. While local policing is largely outside the lines of implementing this new federal commitment. scope of this guide, its costs are inside the scope Our cities and communities, after all, are the places of many municipal budgets. Those costs, layered where non-medical cannabis will be legally sold onto the new administrative costs you will face, and consumed. need to be sustainable.

Getting this right is a big job. This work and this guide are designed to help you do what you do best: protect and strengthen your Local governments will face significant new communities as sustainably and durably as pos- enforcement and operational challenges in the sible. Legalizing non-medical cannabis across this months and years ahead. And those challenges country requires a strong partnership among orders don’t end with policing. There is a world of bylaws of government. And your tireless efforts, in com- to develop and business licensing rules to review. munities of all sizes, from coast to coast to coast, There are processes to adopt across as many as are central to getting the job done. 17 municipal departments. And that’s where this guide comes in.

FCM worked with legal, land-use planning and policy experts to develop a roadmap for how Jenny Gerbasi municipalities might choose to adapt and develop Deputy Mayor of Winnipeg bylaws in domains ranging from land use manage- President, FCM ment to business regulation to public consumption. 30 of 113 Acknowledgements

This guide was made possible Christine Hartig, Strategic Support Officer, Sean McKenzie, Senior Policy Advisor, by the financial and technical By-law Services, City of Ottawa Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association contributions of FCM’s provincial Craig Reid, Senior Advisor, Association and territorial municipal of Municipalities Ontario Steven Dribnenki, Policy and Legal Advisor, Saskatchewan Urban association partners: Jeff O’Farrell, Manager, Legislative Municipalities Association Services, City of Whitehorse / Association Alberta Urban Municipalities Association of Yukon Communities Sylvie Pigeon, Policy Advisor, Union Association francophone des des municipalités du Québec Jerrod Riley, By-law Review Specialist, municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick City of Ottawa Terry Waterhouse, Director, Public Safety, Association of Manitoba Municipalities City of Surrey John Dewey, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario Federation of PEI Municipalities Tracey Cook, Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, Association of Yukon Communities Judy Harwood, Reeve of RM Corman City of Toronto Cities of New Brunswick Association Park/Director, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities Wyatt Skovron, Policy Analyst, Rural Federation of Prince Edward Municipalities of Alberta Island Municipalities Katherine Pihooja, Planner with the Zoning Bylaw Team, Development Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités Services Branch, City of Edmonton FCM acknowledges the expertise and Municipalities Newfoundland Kathryn Holm, Director, Licensing, professionalism provided by the legal and Labrador Property Use Inspections and Animal team at Young Anderson Barristers Northwest Territories Association Services, City of Vancouver and Solicitors who spearheaded the of Communities Kaye Krishna, General Manager of drafting of this guide. We specific- Nunavut Association of Municipalities Development, Buildings, and Licensing, ally want to thank Stefanie Ratjen, City of Vancouver Rural Municipalities of Alberta Bill Buholzer and Alyssa Bradley for Kelly Santarossa, Senior Policy Analyst, tackling this challenging assignment Saskatchewan Association of Alberta Urban Municipal Association Rural Municipalities head-on with sharp research and Kerry Penny, Director of Policy, analysis on a topic with little preced- Saskatchewan Urban Communications & Economic Municipalities Association ence to draw on. Development, City of Yellowknife / NWT Union des Municipalités du Québec Association of Communities Finally, FCM thanks its nearly 2,000 members—Canadian muni- Union of British Columbia Municipalities Leanne Fitch, Chief of Police, cipalities of all sizes and regions, Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick Fredericton Police Force/Cities of New Brunswick Association from coast to coast to coast. Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities Marie-Pierre Rouette, Government These are the local governments Relations Advisor, City of Montreal on the front lines of implementing This project’s Technical Advisory Marnie McGregor, Director of the federal commitment to legal- Group has worked tirelessly to Intergovernmental Relations & Strategic ize non-medical cannabis. They keep it grounded in the realities of Partnerships, City of Vancouver are the fuel that powers FCM’s communities addressing all aspects Matthew Zabloski, Business Strategist, policy and advocacy work. of legalization: City of Calgary Ashley Wedderburn, Strategist, Mélanie Lazure, Senior Health and Intergovernmental & Corporate Strategy, Workplace Safety Advisor, Human City of Calgary Resources Service, City of Montreal Ben Sivak, Principal Planner, Halifax Michael Jack, Chief Corporate Services Regional Municipality / Union of Nova Officer, City of Winnipeg/Association of Scotia Municipalities Manitoba Municipalities Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst, Community Rebecca Anderson, Solicitor, Law Safety, Union of BC Municipalities Branch, City of Edmonton Chelsea Parent, Policy Analyst, Rural Sara Brown, Chief Executive Officer, Municipalities of Alberta NWT Association of Communities 31 of 113 Contents

1 5 Federal framework...... 2 Cannabis in

1.1 Bill C-45, the proposed Cannabis Act...... 3 the workplace...... 32 1.2 Bill C-46, on impaired driving...... 3 5.1 Maintaining safe municipal workplaces...... 33 1.3 Medical vs. non-medical cannabis regimes...... 5 5.2 Existing medical cannabis regime...... 33 1.4 Jurisdictional issues...... 6 5.3 Determining impairment...... 33 5.4 Zero-tolerance policies...... 35 2 5.5 Disclosure of cannabis consumption...... 36 Land use management...... 8 5.6 Substance use policies...... 37 5.7 Substance testing...... 38 2.1 Jurisdictional issues...... 9 5.8 Duty to accommodate...... 40 2.2 Location and scale of commercial cultivation and processing...... 10 2.3 Location and density of retail facilities...... 12 6 2.4 Personal cultivation...... 15 Enforcement issues...... 42

6.1 Cultivation: Building code and 3 bylaw enforcement...... 43 Business regulation...... 20 6.2 Nuisance bylaws and enforcement issues ..... 45 6.3 Potential liability and non-enforcement...... 45 3.1 Jurisdictional issues...... 21 6.4 Enforcement tools and policies...... 46 3.2 Business regulation power...... 22 3.3 Cannabis retail businesses...... 23 3.4 Commercial cultivation and processing facilities...... 24 4 Public consumption...... 26

4.1 Jurisdictional issues...... 27 4.2 Provincial smoking restrictions...... 27 4.3 Public health and welfare...... 28 4.4 Municipally-owned or managed property...... 29 4.5 Promotions, advertising and signage...... 31 32 of 113

Federal 1 framework On April 13, 2017, the federal government tabled two bills to legalize and regulate cannabis in Canada: •• Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (the “Cannabis Act”). •• Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. With a planned Summer 2018 adoption date, the Cannabis Act creates a regulatory framework for the production, distribution, sale, cultivation, and possession of cannabis across Canada. Bill C-46 addresses offences relating to cannabis trafficking, and focuses on strengthening impaired-driving measures.

2 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 33 of 113

and promotion of cannabis products. We address this in 1.1 Bill C-45, the Chapter 2: Land Use Management and Chapter 4: Public proposed Cannabis Act Consumption. Public smoking and alcohol consumption legislation varies As outlined by the federal government, the Cannabis Act greatly across provinces and territories. We anticipate that seeks to achieve the following objectives: many will extend existing legislation to public cannabis consumption. }}Restrict youth access to cannabis. Local governments should be attuned to where consumption }}Regulate promotion or enticements to use cannabis. of cannabis is, or is not, permitted in their province }}Enhance public awareness of the health risks or territory. Local governments should also be aware of associated with cannabis. what cannabis consumption regulations the federal and provincial/territorial governments introduce. This will help }}Impose serious criminal penalties for those breaking them determine whether or how the local government the law, especially those who provide cannabis to wishes to contribute to and work within those regulations young people. in their community. }}Establish strict product safety and quality requirements. }}Provide for the legal production of cannabis. 1.2 Bill C-46, on }}Allow adults to possess and access regulated, quality-controlled, legal cannabis. impaired driving }}Reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. While the Cannabis Act and Bill C-46 were proposed at For local governments, the Cannabis Act has significant the same time and relate to the regulation of cannabis, implications for local land use regulation, business regulation they have distinct focuses. Bill C-46 addresses offences and licensing, and the regulation of public consumption relating to cannabis conveyancing and trafficking, as well and personal cultivation of cannabis. There will also be, to as enhancing impaired-driving investigation and enforce- a certain extent, variations across provincial and territorial ment measures. jurisdictions. The most significant variance will be whether these jurisdictions choose to distribute non-medical cannabis Bill C-46 has significant implications for law enforcement through a government or a privately run system. as well as individual rights protected by the Charter. A brief summary of the proposed legislation follows, but Bill C-46 When implementing a strategy to regulate cannabis locally, is otherwise outside the scope of this guide. municipal governments should first consider and work within any existing or anticipated provincial/territorial and }}Part 1 creates three new offences for having specified federal initiatives that affect the public consumption of levels of a drug in the blood within two hours of driving. cannabis. Under the Cannabis Act, the federal govern- The penalties would depend on the drug type and the ment proposed significant restrictions on the marketing levels of drug or the combination of alcohol and drugs, with the drug levels to be set by regulation.

3 Federal34 of 113framework

For THC, the main psychoactive compound in }}Part 2 replaces the current Criminal Code regime cannabis, a person found driving with a blood content dealing with transportation offences. It would allow of 2 or more nanograms of THC would be subject to a for mandatory alcohol and drug screening by police summary conviction criminal offence. A person found at roadside stops, as well as increased minimum fines driving with higher THC blood content levels, or a com- for impaired driving. bined alcohol and THC blood content level, would be Under the proposed mandatory alcohol and drug subject to even more severe criminal penalties. screening provisions, law enforcement officers would

4 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 35 of 113 Federal framework

be able to demand an oral fluid sample at roadside if be able to access medical cannabis. The Cannabis Act they suspect a driver has a drug, including THC, in also provides that those licensed under the ACMPR for their body. For alcohol, if law enforcement officers have commercial medical cannabis production will continue an “approved screening device” at hand, they will be to be authorized to produce medical cannabis under the permitted to demand breath samples of any drivers Cannabis Act, and be deemed to hold licenses for the they lawfully stop without first suspecting that the driver production of non-medical cannabis. has alcohol in their body. The proposed legislation would also allow for police Definitions: officers to provide opinion evidence in court, as to Cannabis vs marihuana whether they believe a driver was impaired by a drug at the time of testing. This is without the need for an Cannabis is commonly used as a broad term to describe expert witness in each trial. the products derived from the leaves, flowers and resins of the Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica plants, or }}Law enforcement practices by local police forces and hybrids of the two. These products exist in various forms, the RCMP will be affected if Bill C-46 is enacted. such as dried leaves or oils. They are used for different Many of the legislative changes in Bill C-46 relate to purposes, including medical, non-medical, and industrial amending the Criminal Code or involve policing and law purposes. Under the Cannabis Act, cannabis is broadly enforcement practices. The focus of this Guide is to defined and includes: assist local governments in the regulation of cannabis }}Any part of the cannabis plant, other than mature under the Cannabis Act. If a local government is con- stalks that do not contain leaves, flowers or seeds, cerned about the impact of Bill C-46, consultation with the cannabis plant fibre, or the plant root. local police forces and the RCMP is recommended. }}Any substance or mixture of substances that contains or has on it any part of a cannabis plant. 1.3 Medical vs. non- }}Any substance that is identical to any phytocannabinoid produced by, or found in, such a plant, regardless of medical cannabis regimes how the substance was obtained. Marihuana (marijuana) is commonly used to refer to parts The laws regarding cannabis do not change until the of a cannabis plant, such as the leaves or flowers. It not a Cannabis Act has passed. Until such time, the Access to defined term under theCannabis Act. Under the Controlled Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR), Drugs and Substances Act, marihuana is referred to as a released August 2016, remain the authority for lawful can- form of cannabis. nabis production and possession. Currently, cannabis may be grown by registered persons and licensed producers “Cannabis” is preferable to “marihuana” for the regulatory for medical purposes only, unlicensed possession of any context. Furthermore, “marihuana” is often seen spelled cannabis is illegal, and the retail distribution of cannabis in two different ways: the “h” is common in federal communi- “dispensaries” and other storefront operations is also illegal. cations, while the “j” is associated with a phonetic Mexican Spanish usage—which has also drawn critique for a xeno- Although the federal government has indicated it may phobic association. Although cannabis and marihuana have revisit the ACMPR regime if the Cannabis Act becomes historically been used interchangeably, the definition for law, the current ACMPR regime continues under the cannabis is broader, and better able to include cannabis Act. Medical practitioners will continue to be able to pre- products and other substances than marihuana. scribe cannabis for medical purposes. Individuals with a prescription, including those under 18, will continue to

5 Federal36 of 113framework

}}qualifies as fresh cannabis, cannabis oil, cannabis 1.4 Jurisdictional issues plants or seeds;

}}does not have an appearance, shape or attribute that Federal responsibilities could be appealing to a young person; }}does not contain ingredients such as caffeine, alcohol, Under the , the federal government is Cannabis Act or nicotine; and responsible for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive and consistent national framework for }}has not been recalled. regulating production of cannabis. This also includes Edibles, or foods such as candy and baked goods that have setting standards for health and safety and establish- been infused with cannabis, are not currently authorized ing criminal prohibitions. Under the Cannabis Act, the under the proposed federal regime. Although these addi- federal government is specifically responsible for: tional forms of cannabis may be authorized and regulated }}Individual adult possession of cannabis, including in the future. determining the maximum allowable cannabis posses- All retailers must be authorized to sell cannabis under sion and home cultivation quantities. the proposed federal Act, or by provincial legislation that }}Promotions and advertising, including regulating how meets the minimum federal conditions on retail sale. cannabis or cannabis accessories can be promoted, These minimum conditions are that an authorized retailer packaged, labelled and displayed. can only sell cannabis produced by a federally authorized producer that is sold: }}Licensing commercial cannabis production. }}to a person older than 18; }}Industry-wide regulations on the quantities, potency, and ingredients in the types of products that will be }}with appropriate record-keeping measures in place; allowed for sale. }}under conditions to prevent diversion to an illegal }}Registration and tracking of cannabis from seed to sale. market or activity; and

}}Minimum conditions for provincial/territorial distribution }}not through a self-service display or vending machine. and retail sale; and allowing for the federal government to license distribution and sale in any province/territory Delegation of authority that does not enact such legislation. Many of the activities involved in cannabis legalization }}Law enforcement at the border. fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. Federal }}Criminal penalties for those operating outside the enabling legislation may grant similar legislative powers legal system. to the territorial governments. In some circumstances, provincial or territorial governments have further dele- Provincial and territorial gated or recognized local government authority to address certain matters. As a general principle, a federal role does responsibilities not necessarily oust provincial/territorial or local government jurisdiction. Throughout this guide, we examine Under the proposed federal legislation, the provinces and how jurisdictional authority is applied in the context of territories are authorized to license and oversee the distri- non-medical cannabis. bution and sale of cannabis, subject to minimum federal conditions. Some of these minimum conditions are that Municipal governments should examine their enabling cannabis, including cannabis accessories and other prod- legislation, as well as federal legislation and regulations, to ucts, may only be sold if it: understand the full extent of their potential scope of action.

6 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 37 of 113 Federal framework

Summary of possible roles and responsibilities

Federal Provincial/Territorial Municipal

Cannabis production Wholesale and retail distribution Zoning (density, location) of cannabis Cannabis possession limits Retail locations Selection of retail Trafficking Home cultivation distribution model Advertising Business Licensing Workplace safety Minimum age limits (18) Building Codes Discretion to set more Oversight of medical cannabis restrictive limits for: Nuisance regime, including personal •• minimum age for consumption Smoking restrictions cultivation registration •• possession amount Odours Municipal workplace safety Enforcement Regulations around public consumption Personal possession Municipal cost considerations related to local policing

Charter issues As an example, the Charter should not prevent local governments from enforcing building construction and Over the past few years, the Controlled Drugs and safety standards in relation to home cultivation of cannabis. Substances Act provisions dealing with the possession These would likely qualify as “reasonable limits” on any of medical cannabis have been held to be contrary to the Charter right to access a supply of non-medical cannabis. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But there We note other specific Charter considerations in subse- currently does not appear to be a basis in the Charter for a quent sections of this guide. challenge on local government restrictions applying to the production, distribution, retail sale or consumption of cannabis for non-medical purposes. Neither the right to life, liberty and security of the person, nor any other right guaranteed by the Charter, would be infringed by such restrictions.

7 38 of 113

Land use 2 management

he location, scale and density of cannabis cultivation and retail facilities will have real T impacts for local communities. Commercial cultivation presents challenges ranging from odours to use of public water and energy utilities. Retail facilities influence the social and economic character of neighbourhoods, and residents have concerns about proximity to parks and schools. Local governments’ ability to manage land use with tools like zoning will depend on the authority that provinces and territories delegate, as will as the retail models they choose to adopt. Personal cultivation of cannabis is an issue that will require extensive public consultation—and municipalities will face difficult decisions about whether to develop a regulatory response.

8 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 39 of 113

Planning Act, or through a more general statute like 2.1 Jurisdictional issues Alberta’s Municipal Government Act. Local governments are entitled to interpret enabling Planning and zoning regulations fall within the scope of legislation broadly enough to address emerging issues matters for which the Constitution Act, 1867 assigns exclu- and respond effectively to community objectives. However, sive jurisdiction to the provinces. This includes matters of they cannot extend its scope beyond what the wording of a merely local and private nature, and property and civil the legislation can reasonably bear. Some enabling legis- rights. Federal enabling legislation grants similar legislative lation across Canada may allow local governments to deal powers to the territorial governments. with particular uses on a “conditional use” or “direct con- In most circumstances, local government regulations trol” basis, which might be particularly appropriate in the addressing land use activities related to the cultivation, case of new land use activities (such as those associated processing, retail sale and consumption of non-medical with cannabis) whose impacts are not well-understood cannabis would fall within the scope of these provincial/ at the outset. territorial matters. They could fall to local governments, Note that a provincial or territorial government might depending on the extent to which the relevant provincial choose to exercise its jurisdiction over planning and land or territorial government delegates appropriate powers. use management to control cannabis-related activities If a business obtains a federal licence under the Cannabis directly. For example, as a matter of general policy, the Act, it will not mean that the company will not be subject government might not wish to allow the use of residential to provincial/territorial or local government regulations deal- premises for the cultivation of cannabis plants for non-med- ing with land use management. Locally, this constitutional ical use, as is the case in Quebec. This is despite the arrangement can provide municipalities with the author- federal government’s willingness to allow that type of private ity to prohibit particular land uses. We recommend that production under the Cannabis Act. Municipal governments municipalities consult their individual provincial/territorial should monitor the development of the relevant provincial enabling land use laws for specific direction. But generally, or territorial regime before initiating their own regulations. there is no obligation for municipalities to permit cannabis cultivation in specific areas. What does this mean for municipalities? Delegation of land use regulation None of the land use activities that are expected to result from the legalization of cannabis are likely to diverge from The provinces and territories have largely delegated their the existing enabling legislation and interpretations noted authority over planning and land use management to local above. The land use activities contemplated relative to and, in some cases, regional governments. The wording of the Cannabis Act are similar to activities associated with the enabling legislation defines the precise scope of plan- other consumable commodities such as food, beverages ning and land use management authority. This can be done and tobacco. through stand-alone legislation like Prince Edward Island’s

9 Land40 use of 113 management

Given the existing regulatory framework and role of As a result, zoning regulations whether for agricultural or municipal governments, there are several issues related industrial zones should always be in step with the capacity to land use management that local governments may have of utility systems to support the permitted land uses. to address. Cannabis production has some special impacts in relation to odour emissions and a need for heightened security that can be associated with high-value crops. All of these fac- 2.2 Location and scale tors can reasonably inform locational criteria for land use of commercial cultivation management purposes. There are currently around 90 commercial-scale facilities and processing in Canada licensed by Health Canada for medical cannabis production, and many more worldwide. Municipalities This section addresses commercial-scale cannabis may wish to examine these existing facilities to identify and production. For information on personal cultivation of evaluate likely land use impacts and assess the need for a cannabis for non-medical consumption, see Section 2.4: local regulatory framework. Locations of licensed Canadian Personal Cultivation. facilities can be found on the Health Canada website. Typical land use impacts: Other considerations agriculture and production Commercial-scale processing of cannabis may give rise to additional considerations. Extraction of cannabis oil, Producing cannabis for non-medical use at a commercial for example, can involve the use of butane, which is scale is an activity that has some similarities to certain agri- explosive at ordinary temperatures. This is an indus- cultural uses carried out in greenhouses, usually but not trial-type activity, which may be appropriate only in necessarily in agricultural zones. Greenhouse agriculture industrial zones, or in buildings with particular design is sometimes carried out in industrial zones and business and construction characteristics. parks as well. The federal government is proposing to license cannabis Federal authorization for commercial cannabis cultivation processing separately from cultivation and retail sales. under the Cannabis Act will address two scales of culti- These authorizations will include research and develop- vation: standard cultivation and micro-cultivation. It will ment activities, product storage and transportation, and authorize activities typically associated with this type of land the sale of product to licensed retail distributors. Again, use, including research and development, product storage both standard-scale and micro-scale processing facili- and transportation—but not packaging, labelling or retail ties might be authorized. This suggests that land use sale to the public. regulations should address cannabis production and can- Whether local government regulations should distinguish nabis processing as separate activities. In addition, local between standard and micro-cultivation will depend, in regulations could distinguish between different scales of part, on whether the distinction the federal licensing regime processing reflecting the federal licensing regime, if such is making would be practical as a local government distinc- a distinction is practical to enforce. tion. It might be if it is based on cultivation area, but might not be if it is based on product weight or volume. This issue Typical land use restrictions is addressed in greater detail below. As noted earlier, commercial-scale cannabis production Municipally-operated utilities is a form of agriculture. Most zoning bylaw definitions of agriculture would include it, unless the cultivation of As a type of intensive agriculture, cannabis production this particular crop has been carved out of the permitted needs a supply of water for irrigation, of electricity for light- use category. ing, and of energy for heating. The availability of adequate A carve-out for cannabis would have been rare prior to the utilities is a basic land use management consideration. enactment of federal legislation permitting the cultivation of

10 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 41 of 113 Land use management

cannabis for medical use. In general, most zoning bylaws these cases, municipalities did not feel that the equivalent are designed to prohibit land uses in particular zones federal licensing criteria were sufficient. unless the regulations expressly permit the use. To this extent, the facilities were being dealt with in the For clarity, some bylaws also contain a list of expressly same manner as pawnshops and adult entertainment prohibited uses, to avoid any doubt. Explicitly forbidding a venues. Applying similar criteria should be considered specific land use would provide more certainty than relying carefully in the context of local considerations, including on an omission in the list of permitted activities. health, safety, and economic development. This is an example of an instance where the federal role does not necessarily oust provincial/territorial or local govern- The Land Use Bylaw of Grande Prairie, AB, is typical ment’s jurisdiction. and defines an “agricultural operation” as“An agricultural activity conducted for gain or reward or in the hope of expectation of gain or reward, and includes, but is not limited to … the production of What can fruit, vegetables, sod, trees, shrubs and other spe- municipalities do? cialty horticultural crops.” Policy options }}Simply allow the activities to occur within the rubric of Municipalities can write land use regulations to make very existing land use regulations, as agricultural or indus- fine distinctions, for example between manufacturing plants trial activities in the case of production and industrial for furniture and manufacturing plants for automobiles, or manufacturing activities in the case of processing. if the uses have different land use impacts and there is accordingly a policy reason for making the distinction. }}Carve the activities out from existing permitted use Likewise, a local government could distinguish between categories, to be permitted only at locations specified the cultivation of cannabis and the cultivation of other types in the regulations or under the authority of a special of crops—prohibiting one but not others. use permit.

Similarly, regulations can reflect distinctions that the federal }}Carve the activities out from existing permitted use government may be making between standard-scale can- categories, with an exception for existing cannabis nabis production and micro-production facilities run by production operations that were established under small-scale growers. Enforcing such a distinction could the medical cannabis regime. be difficult, though, if the federal distinction is based on a }}Prohibit the activities entirely, as activities that the local revenue or production criterion rather than plant numbers government simply does not wish to permit within its or growing area. It is a good practice to establish a basis for jurisdiction, if the enabling legislation permits prohibi- such distinctions by documenting and analyzing a compari- tion of uses. son between potential impacts. Regulatory options Proximity and }}Make no regulatory change, or amend existing regu- clustering restrictions lations to make it clear that activities related to the commercial production or processing of cannabis are Once Health Canada began licensing commercial included in permitted or permissible use categories. production facilities for medical cannabis, some local }}Amend existing permitted or permissible use categories governments amended their land use regulations to address to exclude commercial cannabis production or pro- community concerns. This included clustering cannabis cessing activities, except at specific locations or under businesses in certain districts by imposing minimum distan- the authority of a special permit. ces between the facilities. In some cases, cities established minimum distances between the production facilities and }}As immediately above, but limit production to the scale land uses involving children, such as parks and schools. In that is appropriate to supply cannabis for medical uses.

11 Land42 use of 113 management

}}Add these activities to a list of prohibited uses, or run stores will be present. There is also the option of an amend all permitted or permissible use categories that exclusively private model where the province controls distri- could conceivably include them, to specifically exclude bution but private businesses are responsible for retail sale. the activities. Possible regulatory language Diverse retail sales models A land use bylaw definition of “agriculture” usually refers to the cultivation of crops. A definition could be modified to At the time of writing, six provinces/territories reflect a local regulatory choice about cannabis cultivation, are moving toward a Crown corporation (public) adding wording that excludes “the cultivation of canna- distribution model for cannabis retail sales. Four bis, other than cultivation authorized under either Part 1 other jurisdictions signalled they will develop a or Part 2 of the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes private retail system. One territory will run a public retail system but with no bricks and mortar Regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances storefronts—online sales only. Another two prov- Act (Canada).” inces/territories will have a hybrid system with The reference to the ACMPR would reflect a policy choice both private and public retail distribution. to allow this use only to the extent that it serves a medicinal market. The exclusion could be narrowed to refer to Municipalities should consult their specific specific locations where cannabis cultivation or processing provincial/territorial cannabis legislation as well is allowed, or to a local conditional use permit or other dis- as general enabling land use planning legislation to cretionary authorization being obtained. better understand where their own municipal roles and responsibilities will originate on the issue of Under the Cannabis Act, Part 1, authorizations are non-medical cannabis. for commercial-scale operations. Part 2 deals with personal use and designated person production as originally authorized under the Medical Marihuana Access The storefront sale of cannabis for non-medical use is Regulations. Excluding cannabis production from per- essentially a type of retail trade with similarities to the mitted “agricultural” uses could either permit or forbid sale of other consumable commodities such as food and both types of production—or allow one of them but beverages. Cannabis is already being sold in Canada, not the other. in illegal storefront dispensaries that some local governments have tolerated in mixed-use neighbourhoods. The use does not appear to have any unusual 2.3 Location and density characteristics in relation to functional aspects such of retail facilities as deliveries of product, off-street parking or signage requirements. It has some similarity to pharmacy uses and banks in relation to the need for secure storage. Hours of Anticipated land use impacts operation may be different from other types of business, but would usually be addressed via business regulations. One of the key variations in provincial/territorial frameworks See Chapter 3: Business Regulation for more information. is the type of retail model that will be implemented. There Local governments will have to consider what behaviours are exclusively public models where the province or territory they wish to incent. And they may be limited in this regard takes control of the entire retail system. There are hybrid by restrictions set out in a specific province or territory. For models where a mix of private retailers and government example, if a municipality wants to use the availability of non-medical cannabis to promote tourism, they may wish to focus on creating tourist commercial districts.

12 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 43 of 113 Land use management

Local governments would benefit from speaking with Alberta’s proposed Act to Control and Regulate municipal staff members from U.S. cities where retail Cannabis provides that: “No person may smoke or cannabis sale is already permitted. Even some bigger vape cannabis … in any area or place where that Canadian cities have a good sense of the challenges person is prohibited from smoking under the Tobacco associated with cannabis clientele, based on their experi- and Smoking Reduction Act or any other Act or the ence with storefront dispensaries. This could help guide bylaws of a municipality.” Canadian municipalities in deciding whether to enact special land use restrictions to either encourage or control the growth of cannabis-related businesses. Proximity and Commercial clustering restrictions consumption facilities Municipalities can use local land use regulations to prevent Smoking tobacco is illegal in most enclosed public the clustering of too many of one kind of business. They places in Canada. The legalization of cannabis use for can also keep similar types of businesses or activities in non-medical purposes will mean that municipalities must one place, and/or away from other land uses. Common clarify whether smoking laws automatically include canna- candidates for such treatment are so-called “adult” busi- bis. This would mean examining both provincial/territorial nesses, arcades, pawnshops and thrift stores. and municipal laws. In terms of restrictions on cannabis consumption and sales In Vancouver, for example, the Public Health Bylaw is or production, regulations about minimum distance from drafted in such a way that cannabis is likely covered. other facilities like schools should be specific. Does the distance requirement refer to a school site on which a school might be built? Or is a school scheduled to be built there? Vancouver’s Health Bylaw No. 9535 defines Does the regulation refer to an unused school building, or “smoking” as including “burning a cigarette or only a school that is actually in operation? Also, regulations cigar, or burning any substance using a pipe, should address what kind of school needs to be a minimum hookah pipe, lighted smoking device or electronic distance away from a cannabis business—public, private, smoking device.” commercial, technical or post-secondary. In the case of spacing between retail cannabis sales outlets, local governments should consider several questions as Municipalities may have to amend smoking bylaws that they develop regulations: contain narrower definitions restricting their scope to tobacco use. The same policy concerns that gave rise to this type of }}When exactly does a “cannabis sales use” start, and public health bylaw, including second-hand tobacco smoke, therefore become subject to proximity or clustering would presumably extend equally to cannabis. considerations? Assuming that provincial/territorial health laws allow local }}Is a building permit or business licence sufficient, governments the flexibility to consume publicly, local gov- or must the use actually be in operation? ernments wishing to allow smoking in particular types of }}Is an application for a building permit or business premises such as “cannabis cafés” may need to make an licence sufficient? exception in their own smoking bylaws. This is in addition In all cases, details on how the requisite distance is to addressing this land use category in zoning and busi- to be measured need to be defined and could include ness regulations. how the distance is calculated, and how variances will Provincial and territorial occupational health and safety be approached. regulations that require employers to protect workers from second-hand smoke in the workplace may complicate the operation of such premises, or even make it impossible.

13 Land44 use of 113 management

Some local governments will be permitted by their land Sign regulations that attempt to directly control the message use management enabling legislation to deal with retail conveyed by a commercial sign could, however, potentially cannabis sales as a conditional use. This would allow them risk interfering with the right to freedom of commercial to use direct control as well as or in the place of zoning, expression under the Charter. taking clustering and spacing considerations into account The federal government intends to address the packaging when issuing site-specific land use approvals. In these and labelling of cannabis products with regulations under cases, they will not need to address those matters in gen- the Cannabis Act. These regulations will have to respect erally applicable regulations. The one-off nature of such provincial and territorial jurisdiction over land use manage- approvals does not eliminate the need, though, for condi- ment, and are therefore unlikely to touch on retail signage. tions to be grounded in an evidence-based land use impact analysis and for the clustering and spacing requirements to For their part, provincial and territorial governments may be communicated clearly to stakeholders. choose to address advertising issues as they create their own cannabis distribution regimes. Neither of these regimes Considerations for is likely to deprive local governments of their entire jurisdiction over the use of commercial signage. medical cannabis Typically, local government signage regulations address Prohibitions and regulations regarding retail sales of the types of signs that are permitted on particular prem- cannabis will have to acknowledge that sales of cannabis ises—whether freestanding or mounted on a building, for for medical purposes will continue. Pre-legalization, phar- example. These regulations can also specify the extent of macists in some jurisdictions were allowed to dispense sign area permitted in relation to the size of the business cannabis to patients with appropriate prescriptions, though premises. Business operators are often subject to land- most preferred not to stock or dispense the drug. This may lord controls as well, such as those requiring a consistent change after legalization if the black market for cannabis is signage format or theme in a retail mall. substantially reduced and having the drug in inventory no longer constitutes a special security risk. Local governments should therefore be careful not to restrict this type of canna- Quebec’s proposed Cannabis Regulation Act contains bis sales with overly broad regulations. the following: “All direct or indirect advertising for the promotion of cannabis, a brand of cannabis, the Retail signs Société québécoise du cannabis or a cannabis producer is prohibited where the advertising … is Retail trade facilities require signage. Under the Canadian disseminated otherwise than … in printed news- , there is a right to freedom Charter of Rights and Freedoms papers and magazines that have an adult readership of commercial expression. Local government regulations of not less than 85%; or … by means of signage vis- that limit the types and sizes of signs that can be used ible only from the inside of a cannabis retail outlet.” in commercial areas are generally acceptable. Examples include prohibitions on large window signs and other types of signage that detract from the visual attractiveness of an Another aspect of signage relates to public health and area, or restrictions on temporary signage associated with the desire to reduce public consumption through mar- the opening of a new business. keting and advertising. We address this in Chapter 4: Public Consumption.

14 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 45 of 113 Land use management

What can 2.4 Personal cultivation municipalities do? Personal use and designated Policy options personal cultivation }}Allow and issue authorization for cannabis shops. Permit this as you would any other business in a The use of residential premises for the cultivation of medical commercial district. cannabis plants has caused major problems for Canadian municipalities over the past several decades. It has meant }}Carve this type of retail sales out of existing a significantly compromised housing stock, heavy demands permitted use categories. Only permit cannabis on policing resources, local nuisance complaints, and ero- businesses at particular locations or under the sion of the culture of compliance on which the effectiveness authority of a special permit. of local bylaws largely depends. }}Prohibit cannabis retail stores completely if the These problems were exacerbated because people holding enabling legislation permits prohibition of uses. Health Canada production licenses failed to adhere to the Regulatory options terms of their licence regarding plant quantities. Health }}Make no regulatory change, or amend existing Canada also failed to enforce those terms. And many of regulations to make it clear that retail cannabis these licences actually authorized cannabis production at sales are included in permitted retail trade land a scale (hundreds of plants) that is simply inappropriate use categories. for a typical residential dwelling. Residential buildings are usually not designed or constructed }}Amend existing permitted use categories to exclude retail cannabis sales activities, except at specific to accommodate cannabis production. The mechanical locations or under the authority of a special permit, systems in non-industrial buildings are usually not appro- from all land use categories that could conceivably priate to support this kind of use without modifications (that include the use. are often carried out by unqualified persons and without permits). The location of dwellings where cannabis is being }}Add these activities to a list of prohibited uses. grown exposes neighbours to odours and other impacts. Possible regulatory language The federal government’s initiatives in commercial production of medical cannabis were, in part, an attempt to }}“Retail trade” means the sale of consumer goods alleviate these problems by shifting cannabis production at retail, including retail trade in bakeries, but from residential premises to properly designed and con- excludes the retail sale of cannabis other than structed facilities. in licensed pharmacies. Personal use under the Cannabis Act

The Cannabis Act permits people over 18 to grow up to four cannabis plants within a “dwelling-house.” Provincial and territorial governments will be able to exercise their own jurisdiction to prohibit or regulate this scale of production, although only Manitoba and Quebec have announced the intention to do so.

15 Land46 use of 113 management

The relevant definition of “dwelling-house” makes no however, the production of medical cannabis under Part 2 distinction between a detached dwelling and a dwelling in of the ACMPR, including production under up to four a multiple-unit building. It also includes any adjacent yard registrations per production site. or garden where the plants could be grown outdoors. No Local regulation of medical cannabis production in federal permit or licence would be required. residential premises will continue to engage Charter issues. The Cannabis Act prohibits the use of residential premises We suggest that you carefully consider these issues before for the production of cannabis for non-medical use at a attempting to further regulate medical cannabis production. larger scale. Health Canada will continue to authorize,

16 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 47 of 113 Land use management

The courts have found that commercial-scale cannabis This all assumes an adequate commercial supply of production facilities were not a complete answer, consti- cannabis that will eliminate the black market. In an ideal tutionally, to patients’ needs for medical cannabis, and world, an adequate legal supply would eliminate the secur- assumed that cannabis production, distribution and pos- ity issues associated with cannabis production in residential session were otherwise illegal. Legalization profoundly premises. The incentive to obtain a licence to produce undermines that assumption, and will likely result in broad medical cannabis and then violate the terms of that licence, availability of the drug across the country. may significantly reduce after legalization. Ordinary land use regulations prohibiting cannabis Local governments might consider whether any of this production in residential premises may, over time, become could be addressed by requiring licences for personal home a reasonable limit on access to medical cannabis, and cultivation. A registration system could help identify where therefore wholly constitutional, if there are plentiful cannabis production is actually occurring—though it is alternative sources of supply. worth evaluating whether citizens would be likely to comply with such a requirement. In the land use management context, growing four Manitoba’s proposed Safe and Responsible Retailing cannabis plants either indoors or outdoors in residential of Cannabis Act provides that “a person must not premises would probably be like growing other types of cultivate cannabis at his or her residence.” The Act domestic plants. It would constitute an ordinary incidental, does not apply to the “cultivation of cannabis for accessory or ancillary use of the premises not requiring medical purposes that occurs in accordance with express authorization in the relevant land use regulations. the requirements of the applicable federal law.” Local governments contemplating a regulatory response to this aspect of the Cannabis Act should examine their accessory or ancillary use regulations. If the regulations already Land use impacts address in detail the types of plant cultivation that is permitted and cannabis is not mentioned, the regulations might Local governments in provinces and territories that have be interpreted, by implication, to prohibit the cultivation of not prohibited this activity will need to consider whether this particular plant species. personal use cannabis production in a dwelling, at the minor scale permitted by the Cannabis Act, will raise land use management issues. The Land Use Bylaw of the Town of Truro, NS defines an “accessory use” as “the use or uses which take Residence-based cannabis production under the federal medical cannabis regime did cause certain challenges from place on the same site as the principal use, and of a municipal health and safety perspective. But this regime a nature customarily and clearly secondary and inci- is likely not an accurate predictor of how non-medical per- dental to the principal use.” sonal cultivation will be taken up by the public at large. Regardless, municipalities may be skeptical about whether or not people will comply with the four-plant limit and if Nuisance regulation federal government will enforce the rule. Personal-use cannabis production at the scale permitted by the Cannabis Act An alternative approach to the issue would be to address would seem to engage no different land use management the actual impacts of cannabis cultivation in residential issues than the cultivation of other types of domestic plants. areas. This would mean enacting regulations that deal Possible exceptions could be odour issues and those asso- directly with the physical impacts of the activity. A local ciated with the risks of outdoor cultivation to children and government may have nuisance regulation and abatement domestic pets. powers that have already been, or could be, exercised in

17 Land48 use of 113 management

relation to odour-producing activities. In that case, canna- have a similar interest in ensuring that multi-unit buildings bis production would not need to be addressed at all via are not used in such a way as to create nuisances or unsafe land use regulations. We examine nuisance regulations in conditions. Local governments with concerns about this use greater detail in the Chapter 6: Enforcement Issues. in multiple-unit buildings might reasonably conclude that they can manage the four-plant scenario in their own rental housing portfolio via tenancy agreements. They may also B.C.’s Community Charter authorizes local choose to leave the management of home cannabis cultiva- governments, under their authority to deal with tion in other buildings for owners to deal with as they see fit. nuisances, to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to “the emission of smoke.” Choosing to regulate

The issue of home cultivation of cannabis—even with a four-plant limit in place—is one that will require public Proprietary jurisdiction consultation. It is also the issue that will be the most chal- of other entities lenging for municipalities to decide on whether to develop a regulatory response. The impacts of cannabis cultivation at Cultivation of cannabis in residential premises, while this scale are perhaps minor, and other actors may be likely potentially subject to local government regulation, is also to address them via separate mechanisms such as tenancy subject to supervision by other interested parties including agreements and strata association bylaws. landlords, condominium corporations and co-operative Citizens expect governments to enforce regulations. The boards. They deal more directly with complaints from issue of how to regulate home cultivation of cannabis will neighbours and may therefore seek to regulate its cultiva- apply to the greatest number of properties. Of all the regulation or use to some degree. tions that might be considered in relation to the legalization of cannabis, this one has the potential to generate the greatest number of enforcement complaints. Saskatchewan’s Condominium Property Act, Section 47(1)(e), gives a condominium corporation the authority to pass bylaws “governing the management, control, administration, use and enjoyment of the units, common property and common facilities.”

Landlords, including local governments that manage their own rental housing portfolio, have an interest in ensuring that their premises are not used in a manner that is inher- ently damaging or unsafe. Boards composed of owners

18 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 49 of 113 Land use management

What can Possible regulatory language This suggested language could support the options above. municipalities do? A definition of the term “cannabis” could be included, referring to its definition in theCannabis Act, or it could Policy options be left undefined. Consider these options for amending the land use regulations: }}Accept minimum-scale plant cultivation (four plants) in residential premises without a local }}Add a regulation along these lines: “No person, regulatory response. other than a person who is authorized to do so under Part 2 of the Access to Cannabis for Medical }}Require some type of permit for this scale of cannabis Purposes Regulation under the Controlled Drugs cultivation in residential premises. Clarify that this is and Substances Act (Canada), shall use any resi- not a commercial activity that would require a busi- dential premises for the growing of a cannabis plant, ness licence. Local government permit records would unless the person has registered the premises with be public. the [municipality] as a residential cannabis produc- }}Regulate the activity by permitting indoor production tion site.” only, or by permitting it only in certain areas such as }}Establish a registration process that includes a detached-dwelling zones. registration fee sufficient to cover the costs of }}Prohibit the activity in all residences. (Accepting that administering the process. such a prohibition could be unenforceable in relation to }}Specify that the use of residential premises for the individuals who hold a personal use production licence growing of a cannabis plant is permitted only if the for medical cannabis.) premises are [a detached dwelling] [located in a sin- Regulatory options gle-family residential (RS1) or two-family residential (RS2) zone]. }}Do nothing. }}Specify that the use of residential premises for the }}Amend the zoning regulations to require a land use permit for the cultivation of cannabis in growing of a cannabis plant is permitted only if the residential premises, and establishing a permit plant is located within a dwelling unit. application procedure. }}Specify that the use of residential premises for the growing of a cannabis plant is prohibited, except in }}Amend the zoning regulations to specify that accessory cultivation of cannabis is permitted only in certain the case of premises in respect of which a registration zones, or is only permitted indoors. has been issued by Health Canada under Part 2 of the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes }}Amend the zoning regulations by adding a prohibition Regulation under the Controlled Drugs and on cannabis cultivation in residential premises gener- Substances Act (Canada). ally, or by excluding cannabis cultivation from the “accessory use” category that is permitted in residential zones.

19 50 of 113

Business 3 regulation

ocal governments expect to have some scope to regulate cannabis cultivation, processing L and retail businesses in their communities. Once again, that scope will depend on the specific regulatory authority that individual provinces and territories choose to delegate to municipalities in their enabling legislation. Local governments may use tools like business licensing to protect public health and safety, to protect youth and restrict their access to cannabis, to deter illicit activities, to mitigate public nuisances, and more. In doing so, it will be essential to strike an effective balance between empowering legal cannabis businesses to operate and addressing legitimate community concerns.

20 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 51 of 113

In New Brunswick, local governments do not have the 3.1 Jurisdictional issues broad general powers to make business licensing bylaws but do have the power to regulate and license only certain businesses. In Winnipeg, the municipal charter states that Constitution Act a bylaw passed under the general authority to regulate businesses must not require a licence to be obtained for “selling Business regulations are exclusively the domain of agricultural produce grown in Manitoba if the sale is made provinces. According to the Constitution Act, 1867, by the individual who produced it, a member of the provinces have 1) the power to regulate particular trades immediate family of the individual or another individual or callings under “property and civil rights”; and 2) the employed by the individual.” power to make laws in relation to “shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and other licences in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local, or municipal purposes.” Conflicts with legislation Federal enabling legislation grants similar legislative powers Business regulations would only be rendered inoperative to territorial governments. In many cases, provinces or terri- if there is a conflict with federal or provincial/territorial legis- tories have delegated this authority to local governments. lation regulating the same subject matter. In this regard, a In these cases, municipalities are free to regulate business conflict may arise where one enactment says “yes” and the activities related to the cultivation, processing, retail sale other says “no.” In these cases, citizens are being told to do and consumption of non-medical cannabis. inconsistent things. The exception is in cases in where the relevant provincial/territorial legislation specifies a different Provincial/territorial delegation legal test. of regulation This is another example where the mere existence of federal or provincial/territorial legislation does not oust local The extent to which provinces and territories delegate their government jurisdiction to regulate the same subject matter. authority over business regulation to local governments will Thus, as discussed in Chapter 2: Land Use Management, a depend on the wording of the enabling legislation. For federal licence does not automatically mean a business is example, in British Columbia, local governments but not immune from local business regulations. regional governments have been delegated the authority to Local government business regulations may, for example, regulate businesses. The authority does not include the enhance the statutory scheme by complementing authority to prohibit businesses. It also requires that before or filling in certain gaps in the federal or provincial/ council adopts a business regulation bylaw, it give notice territorial legislation. They may also impose higher and provide an opportunity for people who say they are standards of control than those in related federal or affected to make representations to council. provincial/territorial legislation.

21 Business52 of 113 regulation

Federal and provincial lands profitability of the business in some circumstances. Local governments should ensure, however, that such regula- and cannabis businesses tions are enacted for a proper municipal purpose. One restriction on a local government’s delegated There are several “municipal purposes” that support authority in relation to business regulation is in relation regulating cannabis businesses. For example, a local to any cannabis businesses operated by the federal government may wish to regulate such businesses to government or on land owned by the federal government. protect public health and safety, to protect youth and The Constitution Act gives exclusive jurisdiction over the restrict their access to cannabis, to deter illicit activities, use of federal lands to the federal government. As a and to mitigate nuisances. result, neither the provincial/territorial governments nor local governments may regulate in relation to the use Types of business regulations of federal lands. One of the most common business regulations is a A further restriction in some provinces/territories is in requirement that people obtain a licence from the local relation to cannabis businesses operated by the provincial/ government in order to run a business. The local govern- territorial government or on land owned by the provincial/ ment may establish in the bylaw terms and conditions that territorial government. As noted in Chapter 2: Land Use must be met for obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a Management, at least six provinces/territories will run public business licence. It can also designate someone to impose retail distribution models, meaning there is likely to be legis- these terms and conditions. The bylaw may suspend or lation that grants provincial/territorial governments immunity cancel a business licence for failing to comply with the from some or all local government regulations. In most terms and conditions. cases this will mean a limited role on the land management The local government may set out in the bylaw specific and business licensing aspects of retail cannabis sales in regulations for certain types of businesses. Types of jurisdictions with government run stores as the exclusive regulations may include, for example: the days and hours retail distributor. of operation of the business, the age of individuals on the In Ontario, the Legislation Act is broadly worded such that premises, the keeping of records, or the display and no Act or regulation binds or affects the provincial Crown advertising of products at the premises. unless it expressly states an intention to do so. This would include local government business regulations. In contrast, in British Columbia, the Interpretation Act only makes local The City of Whitehorse’s Business Licence Bylaw government regulations inapplicable to the provincial Crown requires every person who offers adult books, adult in its use and development of land. magazines or adult videos for sale where such items are on display to the public to place such items: • at a distance not less than 1.5 meters above 3.2 Business the floor; regulation power • in display cases in such a manner that only the title is displayed; and Scope and municipal purpose • in display cases that are within clear view of the area • where payment is made for purchased items. To the extent that a province or territory has delegated business regulation powers to local governments, local governments may place restrictions on businesses. This Another common type of business regulation is a is true even if those restrictions may adversely affect the requirement in the bylaw that the business comply with all applicable federal and provincial laws. In British Columbia,

22 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 53 of 113 Business regulation

local governments have been successful in enforcing such liquor legislation to impose a licensing regime for the sale of a provision in their business licence bylaws against store- cannabis with some similarities to liquor sales. These prov- front medical cannabis retailers. The business licence inces are considering allowing private retailers to sell applications were rejected on the basis that the retail sale cannabis administered through the applicable liquor of cannabis was unlawful under the federal law. commission or corporation. In this regard, the business bylaw may be a helpful tool The manner and extent to which the applicable provincial/ to address any ongoing issues with cannabis retail busi- territorial government intends to regulate such businesses nesses that are operating without a business licence. may prevent or influence a local government’s decision Business bylaws may also require that the business whether to implement its own regulations. An example is comply with all applicable municipal bylaws such as how the LCBO in Ontario will have the exclusive right to zoning and building bylaws. Local governments should sell cannabis. be careful, however, not to use their business regulation Typical business regulations for cannabis retail businesses powers to prevent, for land use management reasons, might include: a particular type of business that is permitted by the }}Requiring the applicant to submit certain documents applicable zoning regulations. such as a security plan, proof of a security alarm con- It is usually also a general requirement in the bylaw for tract, 24/7 contact information, a list of employees and people to pay a fee to obtain a business licence. Such a fee a police information check. should be calculated to correspond with the cost of admin- }}Prohibiting minors on the premises, limiting the hours istering and enforcing the regulatory scheme, to preserve its of operation and requiring security measures. constitutionality as a regulatory charge. }}Prohibiting consumption on the premises.

}}Restricting the sale of other products on the premises.

3.3 Cannabis }}Prohibiting the display and advertising to minors. retail businesses }}Prohibiting online sales and home delivery.

}}Requiring business owners to keep records of all Typical business regulations business activities. }}Restricting the number of licences that may be issued As noted in Chapter 2: Land Use Management, storefront to each person and the total number of licences that cannabis retailers have been lawful in some U.S. states for may be issued in the jurisdiction. several years now. Despite their illegal status in Canada, these storefront operations have proliferated under many }}Requiring that a minimum number of employees with local governments. To manage these businesses, some specific qualifications be on the premises when open. jurisdictions have enacted specific regulations. Others may }}Restricting the advertising and signs visible from choose to do so before cannabis becomes legal in 2018. the outside of the premises.

Many of these regulations parallel alcohol and tobacco }}Requiring a transparent storefront. related regulations. For example, Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador are proposing to amend their }}Requiring measures to prevent nuisances.

23 Business54 of 113 regulation

The City of Vancouver’s Licence Bylaw requires the Regulatory options following security measures to be installed and }}Make no regulatory change, or amend existing maintained on the business premises of a medical regulations to specify the applicable business licence marijuana-related retail business: fee for this category of business, if the enabling legis- • Video surveillance cameras that monitor all lation permits this. entrances and exits and the interior of the busi- }}Amend existing regulations to set out specific business ness premises at all times. regulations for cannabis retail businesses, if the enabling legislation permits this. • Video camera data must be retained for at least 21 days after it is gathered. • A security and fire alarm system must be monitored at all times. 3.4 Commercial • Valuables must be removed from the business cultivation and premises or locked in a safe on the business processing facilities premises at all times when the business is not in operation. Typical business regulations

Local governments should monitor the development of the Most municipal governments have yet to enact specific relevant provincial or territorial regime and may wish to seek regulations for cannabis-related businesses. It could be legal advice before initiating their own business regulations. because the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) already addresses the commercial cultivation and processing of cannabis for medical purposes. Regulations under ACMPR include: What can }}Requiring a criminal record check.

municipalities do? }}Security features such as video surveillance cameras and an intrusion detection system. Policy options }}Detailed record-keeping. }}Simply allow the activities to occur within existing }}Air filter equipment to prevent the escape of odours. business regulations as business activities, which may or may not require a business licence under the At the time of writing, the proposed Health Canada applicable regime and which are not subject to any Cannabis Act regulations have established similar licensing particular regulations. requirements related to location, physical and personal security, record keeping and good production practices. }}Specifically regulate cannabis retail businesses to address issues related with these types of businesses, This does not mean local governments cannot also manage if the provincial/territorial enabling legislation permits this. such businesses. Some of the types of business regulations for cannabis retailers noted above may be equally

24 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 55 of 113 Business regulation

applicable to cannabis cultivation and processing businesses. In the U.S., some states and local governments What can have enacted specific regulations to manage these busi- municipalities do? nesses, including: }}Prohibiting minors on the premises. Policy options }}Prohibiting consumption on the premises. }}Allow the activities to occur within the existing regulations as business activities, which may or }}Restricting the advertising and signs on the premises. may not require a business licence under the Local governments may also wish to enact specific regula- applicable regime and which are not subject to tions in relation to cannabis cultivation and processing any particular regulations. businesses to: }}Specifically regulate cannabis cultivation and }}Prevent nuisances by requiring the annual mainten- processing businesses to address any related issues. ance and documentation of odour control equipment. Regulatory options }}Support community aesthetics by prohibiting the out- }}Make no regulatory change, or amend existing door storage of production or processing equipment. regulations to specify the applicable business licence fee for this category of business.

}}Amend existing regulations to set out specific business regulations for cannabis cultivation and processing businesses.

25 56 of 113

Public 4 consumption

he public consumption of cannabis is associated with a range of potential public harms, T from health impacts of second-hand smoke to behavioural modelling effects for children and youth. The tools and options available to municipalities to mitigate potential harms will depend on the space of authority that provinces and territories choose to delegate. Established practices in regulating tobacco and alcohol consumption offer a foundation for developing a strategy that reflects local priorities. Many factors other than the law influence how and when people consume cannabis—from social customs to product availability—and no single regulatory approach eliminate all harmful public impacts.

26 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 57 of 113

4.1 Jurisdictional issues 4.2 Provincial smoking restrictions As with most local governance matters, municipalities must consider the extent to which they are authorized to regulate cannabis consumption. This chapter addresses how local Across Canada, provincial and territorial governments governments can regulate public consumption through have regulated, or indicated they will regulate, aspects bylaws and policies. As the factors influencing public con- of public consumption of cannabis. They plan to use a sumption of cannabis are diverse, we recommend that combination of cannabis-specific legislation, tobacco municipalities consider a combination of these approaches, smoking legislation, as well as occupational health and alongside consultation with legal counsel. safety regulations. Public consumption cannot be regulated by a local gov- Smoking is the most common form of cannabis ernment on the moral grounds that cannabis consumption consumption, and most provincial/territorial governments should be considered a criminal activity. Under the consti- have sought to incorporate cannabis into the legislation addressing tobacco smoking. Some provinces have done tutional division of powers, the federal government has the so through expanding the definition of “smoke” to include exclusive authority to regulate with respect to criminal law cannabis as well as tobacco and other vapour products. matters. Local bylaws or regulations that are based on a This approach results in existing tobacco smoke restrictions moral position, or perceptions and stereotypes about people also applying to cannabis. who consume cannabis, are unlikely to withstand a challenge before the courts. Many aspects of cannabis consumption, such as posses- New Brunswick’s Smoke-Free Places Act contains a sion, advertising and smoking, are regulated by the federal broad definition for smoking that extends to cannabis. and provincial/territorial orders of government. Most local Specifically, “smoke” means: governments are able to regulate cannabis only as it relates to a power that has been granted to the local government (a) to smoke, hold or otherwise have control over an by the provincial or territorial government. ignited tobacco product or another ignited substance that is intended to be smoked, or In assessing how to effectively address issues associated with public cannabis consumption, local governments must (b) to inhale or exhale vapour from, or to hold or other- first consider the aspects of public cannabis consumption it wise have control over, (i) an activated electronic intends to regulate, and determine whether it is authorized, cigarette, (ii) an activated water pipe, or (iii) another or necessary, to do so. activated device containing a substance that is intended to be inhaled or exhaled.

27 Public58 ofconsumption 113

In addition to including cannabis in the relevant definitions New Brunswick’s Cannabis Control Act (Bill 16) under the smoking legislation, many provincial/territorial proposes restrictions on the places in which cannabis governments have enacted specific legislation or regulations may be consumed in addition to those in the provin- to restrict the places in which cannabis may be consumed. cial smoking legislation: In some cases, these prohibitions on the public consump- 17 (1) No person who is 19 years of age or older shall tion of cannabis are broader than the prohibitions on consume cannabis unless the person is in lawful smoking tobacco. In Ontario’s Cannabis Act, for example, possession of the cannabis and consuming cannabis for non-medical purposes is specifically prohibited in all public places in the province. This a) is in a private dwelling and has obtained the applies in workplaces under the Occupational Health and consent of the occupant, , as well as in vehicles or boats. By comparison, Safety Act b) is on vacant land and has obtained the consent the prohibitions under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, estab- of the owner or occupant, or lish that tobacco smoking is prohibited in enclosed public places and enclosed workplaces, and that no person shall c) is in a place prescribed by regulation and in the smoke tobacco in a vehicle while another person who is circumstances prescribed by regulation, if any less than 16 years old is present in the vehicle. (2) For greater certainty, no person who is 19 years of Put simply, someone accustomed to walking through an age or older shall consume cannabis in a place to Ontario town smoking a tobacco cigarette will not be able which the public has access as of right or by express to do the same with non-medical cannabis. But how local or implied invitation, or any other place prescribed rules will be enforced remains to be clarified (see Chapter by regulation. 6: Enforcement Issues.) […] In other regions, occupational health and safety regulations address the public consumption of cannabis by limiting the 19 Despite any other provision of this Act or the regu- places in which a person may smoke any substance. In the lations, no person shall smoke cannabis or medical Northwest Territories, smoking in public is primarily regulated use cannabis in a place where smoking is prohibited in this way. Under those regulations, smoking is prohibited in under the Smoke-free Places Act. almost all enclosed workplaces, within a buffer zone around those workplaces, as well as in outdoor bus shelters.

Ontario’s Cannabis Act, 2017, Section 11, prohibits the non-medical consumption of cannabis in public 4.3 Public health places, workplaces, vehicles or boats, or any other and welfare place prescribed by the regulations. A “public place” is defined as “any place to which the public Where a local government has been empowered to regulate has access as of right or by invitation, whether the public health or welfare of its community, it may be able express or implied, and whether or not a fee is to further regulate the public areas in which cannabis may charged.” These prohibitions are broader than those be consumed. in the provincial tobacco smoking legislation. In British Columbia and Ontario, many of the municipal bylaws regulating the areas in which smoking is permitted

28 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 59 of 113 Public consumption

have been enacted through such authority. Generally, the understanding that tobacco consumption can be 4.4 Municipally-owned or harmful to respiratory health and contribute to cancers, managed property and that second-hand smoke can have similar negative health impacts, has qualified as health-related reasons for municipal restrictions on tobacco consumption. Local gov- Local governments can also regulate the locations in ernments are likely to be able to draw on a similar approach which cannabis may be consumed as owners or operators for cannabis consumption where authorized. of property. In the event that provincial/territorial smoking legislation does not already prohibit cannabis consumption in a park, a local government may be able to enact In Vancouver, the Parks Board was delegated author- such a prohibition through its authority as the owner of ity to enact bylaws to regulate smoking in parks to that park. A similar approach can be taken to munici- protect and promote public health—adopting lan- pally-operated property, such as community centres or guage like the following: recreational facilities. 3.1 A person must not smoke: Community events and (a) in a park; municipal alcohol policies (b) on a sea wall or beach in a park; The approach many municipalities have taken in (c) in a building in a park, except in a developing a municipal alcohol policy could be adapted caretaker’s residence; to apply to cannabis. For example, an agreement for the use of municipal property for special events, such as fes- (d) in a customer service area in a park; tivals or sporting events, could also be used to manage the (e) in a vehicle for hire in a park; public consumption of cannabis. This could also apply to (f) on public transit in a park; or community centre and arena rentals. (g) in an enclosed or partially enclosed shelter in a park where people wait to board a vehicle for hire or public transit. 3.2 Except as permitted by Section 3.1, a responsible person must not suffer or allow a person to smoke in: (a) a building in a park; (b) customer service area in a park; or (c) a vehicle for hire in a park.

29 Public60 ofconsumption 113

The City of Ottawa’s Municipal Alcohol Policy applies Special challenges to all City Staff, volunteers, community partners who either manage or have control over City property, for municipalities rental clients, and organizers of events, on City Regulating cannabis consumption presents multiple property, at which alcohol will be sold, served or challenges and options for local governments. Their consumed. This Policy applies to the sale, serving authority to regulate smoking cannabis in public depends and consumption of alcohol on City property, or at on provincial or territorial legislation. Their authority, and locations or for events under the City’s control (col- need, to regulate smoking also varies greatly across the lectively “City Property”), whether or not a facility is provinces and territories. operating under a liquor licence issued by the Regulating the public consumption of cannabis that is not Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), smoked presents further challenges as identifiable markers a Special Occasion Permit, a liquor licence with a of consumption, such as smoke or odours, are not as easy Catering Endorsement, or any other approval that to detect. The health risks associated with smoking are also has been issued by the AGCO. less present. City Property includes the following: In regulating public consumption, local governments should be aware that cannabis may be consumed in many • All City-owned properties, different forms. The Cannabis Act allows the production • All properties leased by the City, of cannabis as fresh, dried or oil-based products. While smoking remains the most common, consumption methods • City Highways (including the travelled portion that do not produce smoke, including herbal vaporizers or of the Highway (roadway), boulevards, side- e-cigarettes, or other cannabis-oil based products such as walks or other areas of the Highway), skin creams, are also available. • Properties controlled by local boards “Edibles,” or foods such as candy and baked goods that over which City Council may require that have been infused with cannabis, are not currently author- general policies be followed, ized under the proposed federal regime, although such • Events held by the City at partner or additional forms of cannabis may be authorized and regu- third-party premises, and, lated in the future. Public consumption exceptions for the use of cannabis for • City Properties under a Public-Private medical purposes, or for traditional ceremonial practices, Partnership Agreement, as determined on a must also be considered. case-by-case basis by the General Manager of Recreation, Cultural and Facility Services What can municipalities do?

Policy options }}Allow cannabis smoking within the framework of the existing provincial and federal regulations.

}}Regulate the conditions under which the smoking of cannabis may occur in public places.

}}Prohibit the locations in which the smoking of cannabis may occur in public places.

30 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 61 of 113 Public consumption

Regulatory options }}Uses testimonials or endorsements.

}}Make no regulatory changes to public place policies }}Uses depictions of real or fictional characters. or bylaws. }}Presents cannabis brand elements as glamorous, }}Amend existing bylaws and policies to clarify that risky, exciting or daring. smoking cannabis is only permitted in accordance }}Induces the purchase of cannabis through monetary with the regulations and policies. incentives, lotteries, or contests. }}Specifically regulate conditions under which the }}Is misleading about the characteristics, safety, and smoking of cannabis may occur in public places, or health effects of cannabis. specific public places. The federal government has also proposed restrictions on }}Prohibit the smoking of cannabis on specific public the venues in which advertising for cannabis may occur. places, such as parks, community centres, and The Cannabis Act prohibits the use of cannabis branding sports arenas. elements in locations where people under the age of 18 are }}For special events, develop policies regarding an event permitted, in sponsorships for people, events and facilities, host’s responsibility to control and be accountable for as well as in foreign media. the smoking of cannabis. Marketing regulation and content 4.5 Promotions, Local governments may have the authority to regulate busi- advertising and signage ness and public health regulations and business marketing options when it comes to cannabis. But the rules must be Local governments should also be aware of how other consistent with the federal Cannabis Act and any related orders of government have responded to concerns relating federal or provincial enactments. to public consumption of cannabis. Similar to the Tobacco Awareness of the impact of cannabis consumption on Act, the federal government has set standards on how can- human functioning and development can influence and nabis can be marketed across Canada, as well as minimum reduce the consumption of cannabis. Some local gov- standards for the packaging of cannabis products. When a ernments may have the ability to regulate aspects of how local government is concerned about how promotion and cannabis is promoted, which may indirectly affect cannabis advertising may influence public consumption, an import- consumption levels. ant first step is to be aware of the federal regulations on In considering this approach, municipal governments these matters. should be aware that regulating expressive content, which includes advertising, has the potential to conflict with the Federal regulation of right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter cannabis promotions of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the Cannabis Act, the federal government has Any content-related signage regulations must be connected prohibited cannabis products from being promoted in a to a proper municipal purpose and should not infringe on manner that: this right. This is an area where it is extremely important to consult legal counsel familiar with the applicable municipal }}Refers to its price or distribution. regulatory framework and expression rights. }}Is appealing to young people.

31 62 of 113

Cannabis in 5 the workplace

s employers, municipalities have a duty to ensure safe workplaces—and a can- A nabis-impaired employee can pose safety risks to co-workers and the public. This duty may sometimes collide with an employer’s duty to accommodate people with medical needs or disabilities. Achieving the right balance is vital. Municipalities will face practical and policy challenges here. Cannabis impairment remains difficult to establish objectively. Banning cannabis use among all employees is problematic because some may be using it as prescribed by a doctor. Fundamentally, human resources policies and interventions need to be based on an employee’s ability to do their job, rather than stereotypes or moral judgements about cannabis use.

32 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 63 of 113

An employer should treat medically prescribed cannabis 5.1 Maintaining safe similar to other prescription medication. As outlined below, municipal workplaces there are additional considerations for cannabis consumption for non-medical purposes.

Employers are required to ensure a safe workplace, and an impaired employee can pose a safety risk to themselves, their co-workers, or the public. Whether an employee con- 5.3 Determining sumes a substance that may cause impairment for medical impairment or non-medical purposes, the basic principles around impairment in the workplace continue to apply. The legalization of non-medical cannabis does not affect It is generally acceptable to maintain a policy that all an employer’s duty to ensure a safe workplace—as well as employees arrive at work fit for duty and to conduct them- to accommodate employees with disabilities who are being selves in a safe and lawful manner while on duty. prescribed medical cannabis or employees with disabilities When considering changes to human resource policies stemming from an addiction to cannabis. These duties to with respect to non-medical cannabis, municipal employers accommodate are addressed in Section 5.8. should not make any decisions about impairment based on If an employer suspects that an employee is impaired, assumptions about cannabis use and its impact on an they must observe that the employee’s conduct in the employee’s ability to do their job. Employers must rely on workplace and their ability to perform their work-related their observations to establish reasonable grounds to deter- duties are compromised. mine whether an employee is impaired or not. Employers must not make decisions based on assumptions about the use of cannabis and its impact on an employee’s ability to do their jobs. On its own, information about the 5.2 Existing medical consumption of an impairment-causing substance, or cannabis regime whether it has been consumed for non-medical or medical purposes, will not determine whether an employee is impaired or not. Access to medical cannabis is currently permitted only under the terms and conditions set out in the Access to Accurately assessing whether a person is impaired as a Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). result of consuming cannabis is difficult. There are limited Although the federal government has indicated it will revisit methods to determine impairment from cannabis through the ACMPR regime if and once the Cannabis Act becomes testing. The effects of an average dose of cannabis for an law, the current ACMPR regime would continue under the average user will vary. And unlike the use of a blood-content Cannabis Act. level to determine impairment from alcohol, THC levels in bodily fluids cannot reliably indicate the degree of current impairment.

33 Cannabis64 of 113 in the workplace

As it stands, blood-content levels for THC (the main for employers, as a determination of impaired driving psychoactive compound in cannabis) are considered requires different considerations than determining that under Bill C-46 in the context of impaired driving offences. an employee is impaired in the performance of their Bill C-46 proposes to create three new Criminal Code job duties. offences for having specified levels of THC within two In considering whether an employee is impaired, a hours of driving. supervisor of the employee should be able to respond However, there is no universally agreed-upon standard of to the issues outlined in the following table. measurement to determine whether a person is impaired as a result of consuming cannabis. The proposed blood content thresholds under Bill C-46 are of limited relevance

Reasonable grounds for impairment: Five factors to consider

•• Are there facts to indicate that the employee has shown a form of impairment? 1 Impairment •• Is there a change in physical appearance, behaviour, actions or work performance? •• Observations may include: slurred speech, tardiness, unsteadiness, yelling, odours, admissions of use.

•• Are the facts reliable? 2 Reliable facts •• Did you witness a situation personally, or are you sure that the witness(es) are reliable and have provided first-hand information?

•• Can you explain the facts? 3 Reasonable facts •• Would you be able to describe the observations to another person who does not know the people involved?

4 Documentation •• Are the facts capable of documentation? •• Can the dates, times, names and locations be documented?

5 Timeliness •• Is the impairment situation current, today, while on the job or company property? •• Is this a repeated or ongoing situation?

– Adapted from the City of Edmonton ‘Drug and Alcohol Operating Procedures’, March 2016

34 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 65 of 113 Cannabis in the workplace

Once a supervisor can reasonably demonstrate that an Whether the prescribed substance is available for employee may be impaired, an employer should consider non-medical or medical purposes does not affect an the following questions: employee’s entitlement to use it in accordance with their prescription. }}Is there a safety risk, or a risk of injury, illness or incident in the workplace? Zero tolerance: }}Is the safety risk based on an employee’s change in behaviour or ability? alcohol vs. cannabis

}}Is the change in the employee’s behaviour or ability In most cases, the non-medical use of cannabis and related to the consumption of cannabis? alcohol can be regulated similarly in the workplace. However, the history of cannabis as a medically prescribed As the effects of cannabis will vary among consumers, substance provides context for why implementing a employers must assess people on a case-by-case basis. zero-tolerance policy toward cannabis is not as straight- The specific performance requirements of a position, as forward as a similar prohibition on alcohol. well as the individual’s capacity to fulfill those requirements, must be taken into consideration. In developing a regulatory framework for the non-medical use of alcohol, its treatment as a medical necessity has In evaluating whether there is a safety risk as a result of an been given significantly less attention than it has for canna- employee’s consumption of cannabis, the Canadian Centre bis. The regulation of alcohol has largely been developed for Occupational Health and Safety has recommended from the perspective that it is a non-medical substance. employers consider additional questions such as: Alcohol regulation has taken place without comparable }}Does the person have the ability to perform the job judicial commentary on the right to access it for medical or task safely while impaired? For instance, is the purposes, or a comparable legislative regime to enable employee driving, operating machinery or equipment, such access. or using of sharp objects? When alcohol became regulated for non-medical }}Is there an impact on cognitive ability or judgment consumption, the existence of a right to access it for while impaired? medical purposes was unclear, and there were significantly fewer people who were prescribed alcohol for medical pur- }}Are there other side effects of the medical condition poses in the first place. or the treatment that need to be considered? Workplace policies that include a prohibition on alcohol consumption are generally justified on workplace health and safety considerations. As outlined below, a policy that 5.4 Zero-tolerance is prima facie discriminatory may be justified on the basis policies of being a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). An actual safety risk as a result of impairment from a A zero-tolerance policy on the use of a substance in the substance can justify a prohibition on the use of that sub- workplace can result in discrimination against employees stance in the workplace. With alcohol, there are generally who are prescribed that substance. A person who has a accepted methods and standards— such as a blood medical prescription for a substance, including cannabis, alcohol content and a per se limit—for determining an is generally entitled to consume that substance in accord- impairment threshold. As there is an accepted correlation ance with their prescription. between alcohol consumption and impairment, as well as

35 Cannabis66 of 113 in the workplace

established thresholds to determine impairment, a specific and hearing requirements can discriminate on the basis of prohibition on the use of alcohol in the workplace may physical disability but may qualify as a BFOR in the context be justified with regard to those standards and workplace of a position as a vehicle driver. safety considerations. In establishing a job requirement as a BFOR, an employer Comparable methods or norms to determine impairment should be able to demonstrate, with credible evidence, they do not yet exist for cannabis. It is generally accepted that have considered the specific requirements of the job, and the effects of cannabis consumption differ from person to have explored alternatives to fulfill these requirements that person. If two people consume the same amount of can- did not result in a discriminatory effect. nabis within the same time frame, there is the potential that this would result in one person not being impaired and other being significantly impaired. This environment 5.5 Disclosure of underlines the need for an observation-based approach to determining impairment. cannabis consumption Bona fide occupational requirements Non-medical cannabis use

A zero-tolerance policy may be relevant in a workplace The general rule is that employers have no authority over where the employer can demonstrate that sobriety is a what employees do outside working hours, unless it can be bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). A BFOR shown that an employer’s legitimate business interests are is a requirement that is essential to the safe and proper affected in some way. An employee’s decision to frequent a performance of the job. particular pub on a Monday night, for example, should not affect their employment, unless their Monday night activ- As a BFOR is an exception to the general prohibition ities impaired the employee’s ability to do their job when against discrimination, whether a policy meets the standard they reported for work on Tuesday morning. of a BFOR will be given very close consideration by the courts, human rights tribunals, and labour arbitrators. A General practice suggests that a workplace standard of BFOR will only be valid where the employer is able to dem- requiring employees to show up fit for work is acceptable. onstrate that the requirement meets three conditions: A requirement that employees self-disclose to their supervisor, or not attend work, if they believe they are impaired as }}It was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to a result of consuming a substance is also consistent with an the performance of the job. employer’s duty to maintain a safe workplace. }}It was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that An employer is generally not entitled to request information it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate about an employee’s use of substances while off-duty. An work-related purpose. important consideration in dealing with employees who use }}It is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the cannabis is to not make decisions based on assumptions legitimate work-related purpose, in the sense that the about the use of cannabis and its impact on an employ- employer cannot accommodate the affected employee ee’s ability to do their job. An employer may, however, without incurring undue hardship. investigate an employee’s off-duty conduct if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the employee’s A BFOR must clearly relate to the needs and perform- off-duty conduct is negatively affecting their ability to fulfil ance of the job. A requirement to be able to lift a certain the requirements of their job. An employer’s reasonable amount of weight may discriminate against people who grounds must be based on observations of the employee have a physical disability, but may qualify as a BFOR in the in the workplace, and a connection between the alleged context of a care home where staff are required to assist off-conduct impairing the employee while on-duty. people with mobility issues. Similarly, minimum eyesight

36 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 67 of 113 Cannabis in the workplace

Medical cannabis use At a minimum, substance use policies should address: }}Employee conduct standards. Employers may be able to require that employees disclose their use of medical cannabis in the same manner as other }}Guidelines for the use of substances that may prescription drugs that cause impairment. In obtaining this cause impairment. information, an employer’s right to medical information }}Standards and procedures for supervisors and does not typically extend to the right to learn about specific managers to address impairment. illness or conditions for which an employee may have a }}Consequences of violating the policy. drug prescription. The focus of any employer enquiries should be on the Employee conduct standards impact on the ability of the employee’s ability to perform their job duties. Questions about the likelihood of the pre- A workplace standard requiring employees to show up scribed medication causing impairment while on duty are fit for work is acceptable. Similar to alcohol or smoking, more likely to be acceptable than those that ask for infor- employers may be able to prohibit the consumption of can- mation about why the medication was prescribed. nabis for non-medical purposes while in the performance of If there are reasonable concerns about impairment, one’s employment duties or on a worksite. employers may be able to request confirmation from the Employer policies prohibiting alcohol consumption in the doctor that the prescribed cannabis usage does not impair workplace and during work hours can be amended to an employee’s ability to perform their job duties safely. include the use of non-medical cannabis once it is legal. Depending on the requirements of an employee’s position, Anti-smoking laws will likely apply to cannabis as they do the employer may also be able to request medical informa- to tobacco, in that smoking in most enclosed workplaces tion about the amount and type of cannabis that has been is likely to be prohibited. prescribed, as well as the frequency of use. The more safe- Local governments should review such legislation from their ty-sensitive the workplace or position is, the more medical province/territory to evaluate the extent to which, if at all, information an employer will be able to justify requesting. cannabis smoking may be permissible in the workplace. If an employer has reasonable concerns that an employee is impaired while at work, even if as a result of Guidelines for employee consuming cannabis for medical purposes, the employer may be able to require the employee to provide medical use of substances information about their consumption of impairment-caus- A substance use policy should identify the circumstances ing substances. Decisions on any further actions should in which an employee should report the use of substan- be based on the nature of the job duties and appropriate ces that may cause impairment. It should also specify any medical evidence. requirements to provide appropriate medical information. A standard that employees self-disclose to their supervisor—or not attend work—if they believe they are impaired 5.6 Substance use as a result of consuming a substance is consistent with an policies employer’s duty to maintain a safe workplace. Addressing substance-related Employers should update their substance use policies to impairment address any changes to the legal status of cannabis possession and consumption. Any substance use policy must Guidelines for supervisors and managers to assist in focus on impairment, and what it means to be fit for duty. evaluating whether an employee is impaired in the workplace should be included in a substance use policy (see reasonable grounds for impairment: five factors). Employers may wish to establish a documentation or

37 Cannabis68 of 113 in the workplace

reporting procedure, such as a checklist, to help deter- form of bodily intrusion and surrender of bodily sub- mine whether indicators of impaired behaviour are present stances in a coercive environment, and can result in in the workplace. disciplinary consequences or public embarrassment. Where an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that Employer substance testing policies tend to be motivated an employee is impaired in the workplace, they may request by employer perceptions of workplace safety risks. Any additional information from that employee. The level of infor- substance testing policy must balance an employee’s pri- mation that can be requested, including medical documents vacy and human rights with an employer’s ability to require where appropriate, will depend on the circumstances and personal information to achieve worksite safety. must be assessed case-by-case. Policies will need to incor- The courts, arbitrators and tribunals have overwhelmingly porate flexibility and focus on impairment and safety, not the rejected employer-imposed substance testing policies, use of cannabis or other substances. particularly those involving mandatory random testing of Employers are also required to accommodate employees employees. The only exception is if there is evidence of with disabilities. Substance use policies should provide enhanced safety risks, including evidence of workplace managers and supervisors with guidelines for situations substance misuse problems. where an employee may be misusing substances in con- Employers should also be aware there is a growing body nection with a substance dependence. of research questioning the efficacy of drug testing pro- The policy should outline any consequences of a policy grams for establishing impairment. Drug testing indicates violation, including disciplinary action, or assessment and the presence of a substance, not how the body interacts rehabilitation measures. For unionized workplaces, consul- with it. With cannabis, it is recognized that a standard dose tation with the union regarding any proposed changes to will affect individuals differently. Technology to establish a the current substance use policies is recommended. standard mechanism to determine impairment from cannabis consumption is being researched and developed, particularly in the context of tools to assist law enforcement 5.7 Substance testing in determining impaired driving in a roadside stop. But at this point, there is no reliable measurement on which employers can rely. We strongly suggest that municipalities consult with legal In considering any workplace substance testing policy, counsel if they are considering a workplace substance the onus is on the employer to establish the reasonableness testing policy. of its policy. The evidence to demonstrate that the extent Workplace safety concerns of the safety risk justifies the imposition of a substance testing policy will depend on the circumstances of the vs. privacy interests specific case. The jurisprudence has outlined that, where a substance testing policy is motivated by safety concerns, Privacy and safety are highly sensitive and significant those concerns must be real and tangible. Uncertain or workplace interests that are occasionally in conflict. speculative health and safety risks, including those based The right to privacy and the related right to security of on stereotypes or perceptions of substances or disabilities, the person are fundamental individual rights protected will not justify such an invasion of employee privacy. by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A workplace substance testing policy will often infringe on some aspect of these individual rights. This is because substance testing typically involves some

38 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 69 of 113 Cannabis in the workplace

When substance testing In safety-sensitive worksites, reasonable cause testing may be permitted. Individual employees may be required to policies may be permitted undergo substance testing where the employer believes on reasonable grounds that an employee is impaired while on Substance testing policies have been upheld by the duty or their actions are in contravention of an established courts in situations where they represent a proportionate workplace substance use policy. response to legitimate safety concerns as well as privacy interests. In those cases, evidence of the following fac- In all cases, the onus is on the employer to establish the tors has supported the implementation of a substance reasonableness of any workplace substance testing policy, testing policy: and employers must ensure that any substance testing procedures and methods are reasonable, not onerous, }}The workplace or industry is safety-sensitive. and minimally invasive. }}There are known problems involving impaired employees in the workplace. The Halifax Regional Municipality’s Substance Abuse }}The procedures for and methods of testing for Prevention Policy specifies that alcohol and drug test- substance are minimally invasive. ing is appropriate for employees working in safety }}Affected employees are given advance notice of the sensitive positions and are subject to testing for alco- substance testing policy, including prior to the com- hol and drugs, as funded by the applicable business mencement of their employment. unit, under the following situations: Workplace substance testing for individual employees may • Post-accident, near miss, or potentially be justifiable for individual employees as part of a post-in- dangerous incidents; cident response. A post-incident substance test should only be conducted when the employee’s actions or lack • Reasonable grounds; of actions have contributed to the cause of the incident, a • Return to work program after primary treatment; “near-miss” or a potentially dangerous situation. • Return to work program while in aftercare. Prior to any testing, an employer should have a post-incident substance testing protocol in place that identifies the The policy contains checklists to assist in docu- specific circumstances in which testing will take place. menting observations about the potential impairment Language should not be retaliatory, or discourage the of an employee, as well as procedures for testing reporting of illnesses or injuries. based on reasonable grounds or post-incidents. Workplace substance testing may also be permissible as part of a return-to-work program, including a last- chance agreement or a contingency behaviour contract. Whether a particular risk is sufficient to justify an employer’s For example, substance testing may be part of return- drug-testing policy will depend on a variety of circum- to-work conditions for an individual employee who is stances and considerations, including the employer’s returning to a safety-sensitive job after treatment for a evidence to demonstrate these factors. Legal counsel is substance addiction. strongly encouraged if an employer is considering a workplace substance testing policy.

39 Cannabis70 of 113 in the workplace

5.8 Duty to accommodate

Employers are required to accommodate employees with disabilities. With cannabis, this duty is likely to arise in two ways in the workplace: }}The employee is addicted to cannabis, which is a disability in and of itself under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

}}An employee is not addicted to cannabis, but uses cannabis to treat a disability. The laws in regard to employees who are addicted to cannabis will not necessarily change when it is legalized, as employers already have the duty to accommodate employees addicted to substances like alcohol and prescription drugs. Where an employee has a legal prescription for medical cannabis, there are three requirements to trig- ger an employer’s duty to accommodate: }}the employee has a disability;

}}the employee has been legally prescribed cannabis by a medical practitioner in accordance with the relevant regulations to treat the disability; and

}}the employee is using cannabis in accordance with the prescription. Accommodations for the use of medical cannabis will need to be treated in the same manner as when other employees are prescribed medication that could cause impairment. That the prescribed medication is cannabis as opposed to another type of prescription medication does not change the employer’s obligations in the consideration of whether an employee can be accommodated. This is the case even for employees in safety-sensitive positions, though the duty to accommodate may be different than for employees who are not in safety-sensitive positions.

40 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 71 of 113 Cannabis in the workplace

41 72 of 113

Enforcement 6 issues

or years, local governments have faced enforcement issues arising from illegal can- F nabis production and sale. While enforcing federal law on controlled substances falls to local police and the RCMP, municipalities have also developed by-laws to address community impacts. Though the former is beyond this guide’s scope, we explore interplays between local police and bylaw services. With legalization, municipal enforcement roles will include inspection and compliance with provincial building codes and municipal bylaws, including regulating neighbourhood disputes over nuisance issues. Critically, in designing new bylaws and tools, municipalities must carefully weigh how practical they will be to enforce, and how well they can align with the work of police services.

42 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 73 of 113

A registered person may grow cannabis plants themselves, 6.1 Cultivation: or assign a designated person to do so. A designated per- Building code and son may grow plants for up to two registered persons, and any particular civic address can be used for production bylaw enforcement under up to four registrations. This can result in a significant number of cannabis plants being cultivated by one or Building code compliance issues related to illegal cannabis more designated people, including within residential prem- production are well known to local governments. Cannabis ises. While the ACMPR regime may be amended or production in residential premises has been associated with replaced at some point, there has been no indication that shoddy construction, overloaded or bypassed electrical wir- these arrangements will change once non-medical canna- ing, and private security measures that block required fire bis is legalized. exits. Other dangers include unauthorized municipal water As this level of cannabis cultivation is completely legal connections that risk back-flow into municipal water servi- under federal law, there is no reason (other than avoiding ces, and mould and air quality issues that endure even costs) for those engaged in the activity not to comply with after cannabis production has ended. applicable building construction and safety standards. Local governments have had a role to play in inspecting They don’t need to stay “under the radar” of law enforce- such operations, and enforcing building codes and other ment. Nevertheless, building code compliance issues in construction standards. Some local governments have relation to such matters as electrical safety and air quality passed bylaws specifically aimed at addressing these may continue to arise in these lawful production sites, building code, fire, health and safety issues—recovering as owners and tenants attempt to alter their premises to investigation and enforcement costs from building owners. accommodate activities for which they were not originally designed or constructed. Context: medical cannabis If the Cannabis Act has its desired effect, the commercial availability of an adequate, quality supply of cannabis will With the advent of the Access to Cannabis for Medical reduce the need for people to grow the plants themselves. Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) and predecessor federal Local governments may, however, wish to consider how regulations, some cannabis cultivation for medical purposes they will inspect for and properly enforce building code within residences became legal under federal law. Under requirements in relation to large scale indoor operations the ACMPR, a registered person is permitted to grow up to that the ACMPR allows in residential premises. five indoor cannabis plants for each daily gram of dried cannabis they have been prescribed for medical purposes. Provincial/territorial or municipal building construction and safety laws could be found to infringe a person’s right under

43 Enforcement74 of 113 issues

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a Many local governments have found it helpful to coordinate reasonable supply of medical cannabis. But this infringe- inspections of known or suspected unlawful cannabis pro- ment would have a good chance of being found to be a duction operations with police and provincial health justifiable limit of that right under Section 1 of the Charter, inspectors. While police cannot participate in inspections given the compelling rationale for building safety require- for enforcement of federal law without a warrant, they can ments. Local governments have little reason to be timid accompany other inspectors for the purposes of ensuring about enforcing these types of standards. their safety. In some cases, a warrant may also be advis- able. This is an example of the interplay between local Non-medical cannabis police and municipal bylaw services that will need to drive successful enforcement approaches. The non-medical cannabis regime will authorize a maximum of four plants per household for personal cultivation, which may be indoors or outdoors. Provincial and territorial The Coordinated Safety Response Team (CSRT) in regimes may further restrict or prohibit this type of cannabis Calgary provides a coordinated approach to identifying production, which may pose risks for young children and potentially unsafe conditions on construction sites or domestic pets, particularly if carried on outdoors. buildings and conducts comprehensive joint reviews, This minor scale of production may not ordinarily create inspections and investigations of these sites. CSRT health or safety issues or lead to contraventions of building members include: safety standards. There are no Charter of Rights and • City of Calgary: Safety Response Unit, Calgary Freedoms issues with laws restricting or prohibiting the pro- Community Standards, Calgary Police Service duction of cannabis that has no medical purpose. The extent to which federal officials will police and enforce • Occupational Health and Safety Alberta the four-plant limit is unknown. For the same reasons that • ALERT: Green Team South and Safer Communities federal officials may have little inclination to enforce this and Neighbourhoods limit, local governments should carefully consider whether • Alberta Health Services they have the resources to monitor compliance with any overlapping local limit, whether enacted in a zoning bylaw The team is designed to quickly respond to incidents or some other regulatory bylaw. and help ensure public safety. It also builds strategies to help the construction industry decrease risk, includ- Unlawful production operations ing through the remediation and demolition of cannabis grow-op sites. One of the goals of the legalization of non-medical cannabis is to undermine its unlawful production. However, local governments may still be called upon to inspect illegal cannabis production facilities operating without federal Local government permits permits or at a scale that exceeds the federal authorization. and licences Municipalities should take care both to protect the safety of inspectors and to act within the authority they have to Permit and licence issuance remains an important part inspect and enforce bylaws, without allowing the inspection of the bylaw enforcement function for many local govern- to become an unlawful search and seizure for the purposes ments. Its application will vary across provinces and of enforcing federal law. However, these operations may be territories depending on the regulations and authorities they unlawful under applicable local government land use and/ or business regulations, or may involve contraventions of building construction or fire safety standards. Inspections are wholly appropriate for those purposes.

44 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 75 of 113 Enforcement issues

provide to local governments. Broadly speaking, building odour impact assessments and control plans might be permit and business licence applications are a significant included in requirements for rezoning applications or opportunity for local governments to review bylaw compli- development approvals in circumstances where these are ance. This includes a review of zoning, provincial and local authorized and warranted. building and fire safety standards. In the case of business Zoning setbacks, landscaping, buffer or similar require- licences, local governments may review any federal and ments may be considered for certain types of facilities that provincial/territorial authorizations that may be required. are anticipated to cause odour or other nuisances. This is in addition to the basic locational criteria that have traditionally restricted problem activities to their own special zones. 6.2 Nuisance bylaws and Municipalities may also want to set business licence enforcement issues conditions that could reduce nuisance concerns around cannabis production and retail facilities. For more on this, see Chapter 3: Business Regulation. In addition, public Local governments are key regulators when it comes to consumption regulations, where authorized, may be used neighbourhood disputes over nuisance issues. Many local to contain or limit public exposure to odours and smoke. governments have special powers in this regard, and may For more on this, see Chapter 4: Public Consumption. even be able to make nuisance abatement orders. As a starting point, though, local governments should be cognizant of all nuisance management aspects of regulations from other orders of government. 6.3 Potential liability and

As noted in Chapter 3: Business Regulation, federal non-enforcement government authorizations for medical cannabis production facilities have, from the outset, required the installation of Given the potential nuisance, health and safety issues that odour control equipment. This suggests that local govern- might arise, responsibility for cannabis-related regulation ments might wish to focus efforts on proper use and and enforcement has led to some concern over potential operation of the equipment—a matter that the federal liability issues for local governments. However, the liability government may tend to leave unaddressed. potential in this area is no more significant than any other Odours area of local government regulation. It is sometimes alleged in lawsuits against local govern- As local governments anticipate an increase in nuisance ments that failure to enforce local regulations in relation to complaints with legalized cannabis, odour issues rank a nuisance has depressed the value of adjacent properties. among their top concerns—and these are notoriously These lawsuits claim that the local government is under a difficult to regulate and remediate. legal duty to enforce its regulations to prevent the nuisance, and that it must therefore compensate property owners for Because odours are hard to quantify objectively in terms the reduced value. Generally, this legal proposition is not of strength or character, setting regulatory standards is sound. (The property owner may have a good claim in nuis- challenging. While some odour testing labs exist in Canada, ance against their neighbour, however.) their usefulness for regulatory purposes is questionable, and testing can be onerous and expensive. Even if and Local governments can decide, for bona fide reasons, not when the quantification of odour can be satisfactorily to enforce particular regulations in relation to particular fac- addressed, an odour’s source can be challenging to prove tual circumstances, even if non-enforcement might cause to the standard needed in court. financial harm to affected neighbours or owners.Bona reasons include such factors as the severity, scale or Proactive approaches to cannabis-related odour and fide duration of the contravention and the cost to the local gov- nuisance abatement are therefore preferable. For example, ernment of securing compliance with the regulation.

45 Enforcement76 of 113 issues

Further, enforcement is sometimes suspended while Enforcement practices a regulation is under review or in the process of being amended or repealed. However, the position of any citizen Enforcement policies are an important tool for managing complainant must also be considered. Good governance expectations and resources. Local governments should suggests that the maker of a valid complaint is entitled to an consider whether to implement proactive enforcement and explanation of any local government decision not to investi- investigations, or only to investigate where complaints have gate or enforce. been made. Building inspection is an established area where local gov- Any complaints made under a complaint-based enforce- ernments owe a duty of care to those who may occupy or ment policy should be documented. Proactive enforcement purchase property. Ensuring a consistent level of care in practices should also be documented so staff, elected offi- monitoring building code compliance will be important once cials and the public know what they can expect, and the non-medical cannabis is legalized. No local government extent of resources that may be invested. is required to establish any particular type of regime for Generally speaking, prompt attention to bylaw contraven- inspection and enforcement of building standards, except tions once discovered, whether by complaint or proactive in some jurisdictions in relation to fire safety inspections. investigation, will result in better compliance rates overall. However having established a particular regime, such as one based on complaints from tenants or neighbours, local Enforcement remedies for cannabis-related complaints governments should be diligent about following that regime in and contraventions may vary greatly, depending on the relation to each individual complaint. enactment that has been breached. Self-help remedies are often attempted first. Businesses breaching zoning or business licensing 6.4 Enforcement tools conditions, or even federal or provincial/territorial enactments—depending on how the business licensing and policies regulations have been drafted—may be subject to licence suspension or revocation. Building permits may be withheld or stop-work orders Bylaw drafting issued if proposed or actual construction does not respect Residents will likely expect enforcement of any applicable building codes or bylaw standards—including regulations that have been adopted with regard to the those pertaining to signage on retail premises. Remedial legalization of cannabis. This expectation should be kept action orders can be considered for existing buildings in in mind as regulations are drafted and considered for which contraventions are detected, such as bypassed elec- enactment. Enacting regulations that the local government trical breaker panels or barricaded exit doors. has no realistic intention or ability to enforce is not a good Municipal ticketing, injunctions and other court proceed- governance practice. It can lead to reduced voluntary ings are usually a last resort. These remedies are almost compliance with respect to that regulation as well as other always more expensive, and to some degree take the matter enforcement areas. out of the local government’s hands, exposing it to proced- Having elected to regulate, local governments should keep ural delays. enforcement practicalities in mind when drafting the regulations, consulting with legal counsel as to the elements of any offence that will have to be proven to obtain a conviction or fine.

46 MUNICIPAL GUIDE TO CANNABIS LEGALIZATION 77 of 113 Enforcement issues

47 78 of 113

FCM.CA 79 of 113

MINUTES Monday, April 16, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers at the Nanton Fire Hall, 2503 – 21 Avenue

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Jennifer Handley and Councillors Victor Czop, John Dozeman, Beryl West and Terry Wickett. Absent: Councillors Dan McLelland and Dave Mitchell.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marianne Morrison Interim Chief Administrative Officer Lisa Lockton Legislative Services Barry Sturrock Operations Manager

1. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:

The Regular Meeting was called to order by Mayor Handley at 7:02 p.m.

RESOLUTION # 137 – 18/04/16 - Wickett The Regular Council agenda for April 16, 2018 was accepted with the following changes: 4.4 Addition: Extension of Natural Gas Contract for Provision to Town Facilities; and 7.1 Addition: Personnel Matter – FOIP Section 17(4)(d). CARRIED

2. PRESENTATIONS:

2.1 Public Hearing re: Community Bylaw #1299/18 – 7:05 p.m.

2.1.1 The Mayor called the Public Hearing to order at 7:03 p.m. and read:

“This Public Hearing is called to order at 7:30 p.m., pursuant to Section 692 of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to hear any submissions regarding the passing of Community Bylaw No. 1299/18, to;

Mitigate Noise, Nuisances and Unsightly Premises

The notice of the Public Hearing was duly advertised on April 4 and April 11, 2018 in the Nanton News.

2.1.2 The Mayor requested if there have been any written submissions. There were none.

2.1.3 The Mayor requested if there is anyone present wishing to make a presentation.

Two members of the public present requested clarification on the section of the bylaw regarding vehicle maintenance and unregistered vehicles. The concerns were addressed by Council and Administration.

2.1.4 The Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:15 p.m.

2.2 Auditors, BDO Canada, Will ZoBell and Laina Verhoof – 7:15 – 7:25 p.m.

1 of 4 80 of 113

The presentation of the 2017 Town of Nanton financial statements concluded at 7:40 p.m. Mr. ZoBell and Ms. Verhoof left the meeting after the resolution to accept the statements as agenda item 4.2.

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:

3.1 ADOPTION:

3.1.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2018 – E

RESOLUTION # 138 - 18/04/16 - Dozeman The Councillors all having read the minutes and there being no errors, omissions or corrections, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the Town of Nanton held April 2, 2018, were accepted as distributed. CARRIED

3.1.2 Governance Committee Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2018 - E

RESOLUTION # 139 - 18/04/16 - West The Councillors all having read the minutes and there being no errors, omissions or corrections, the Minutes of the Governance Committee Meeting of the Town of Nanton held March 1, 2018, were accepted as distributed. CARRIED

4. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Note: Due to the presence of the Auditors, and public in regards to Bylaw #1299 – order of agenda items was changed to 4.2, 4.3, 4.1 and 4.4.

4.2 Financial Statements – E

RESOLUTION # 140 - 18/04/16 - Wickett Moved to accept the Town of Nanton Audited 2017 Financial Statement, prepared by the Town’s Auditors, BDO Canada, signed and attached to these minutes of April 16, 2018, as Schedule “A”. CARRIED

4.3 Consideration of Bylaw #1299/18 for second reading - E

RESOLUTION # 141 - 18/04/16 - Wickett Moved to read Town of Nanton Community Bylaw #1299/18, a bylaw to mitigate noise, nuisances and unsightly premises, for a second time. CARRIED

RESOLUTION # 142 - 18/04/16 - Dozeman Moved to read Town of Nanton Community Bylaw #1299/18 for a third and final time. CARRIED

4.1 Presentation of Budget amendments – on table

RESOLUTION # 143 - 18/04/16 – Dozeman Moved to defer decision regarding proposed 2018 budget amendment to the April 23, 2018 Special Meeting of Council. CARRIED

4.4 Extension of Natural Gas Contract for Provision to Town Facilities (addition):

RESOLUTION # 144 - 18/04/16 - West

2 of 4 Regular Council Meeting April 16, 2018. 81 of 113

Approve the extension of the contract with 8760 Energy to include the additional term of January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, for the provision of gas and electrical services to Town of Nanton facilities. CARRIED

5. CORRESPONDENCE:

5.1 FOR ACTION:

5.1.1 Letter re: Summer Temporary Employment Program funding process - E

RESOLUTION # 145 - 18/04/16 - Czop Moved to send correspondence to Alberta Government, Minister of Labour, under signature of the Mayor. to protest the process by which Summer Temporary Employment Program (STEP) funds are allocated. CARRIED

5.1.2 Partners FOR the Saskatchewan River Basin – Invitation for Membership – E

No action was taken by Council.

5.2 FOR INFORMATION:

5.2.1 A.A.M.D. & C. Newsletter, “Contact”- none received. 5.2.2 Digest of AUMA/AMSC News, April 4, 2018. 5.2.3 Alberta Municipal Affairs – Municipal Accountability Program (MAP) – E 5.2.4 Invitation to Great Chautauqua Revival at Cardston & Magrath, June 15 & 16, 2018 - E

6. REPORTS:

6.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: 6.1.1 Council Follow Up Action List – E 6.1.2 Monthly Report - E

6.2 FINANCIAL: No report

6.3 DEPARTMENT: 6.3.1 Corporate Services Manager – no report 6.3.2 Operations Manager – on table 6.3.3 Planning & Development Officer - E

6.4 COUNCIL:

6.4.2 COUNCILLOR VICTOR CZOP - E

6.5 OTHERS: 6.5.1 Mosquito Creek Foundation Representative - E

RESOLUTION # 146- 18/04/16 - Wickett Moved that all written reports, as recorded on the agenda for April 16, 2018, be accepted for information and filing. CARRIED

RESOLUTION # 147 – 18/04/16 - West Approved the addition of agenda Item 6.5.2 – Lowering of Nanton flag. CARRIED

3 of 4 Regular Council Meeting April 16, 2018. 82 of 113

6.5.2 Lowering of Nanton Municipal Flag (addition)

RESOLUTION # 148 - 18/04/16 - Wickett Approve the lowering of the Nanton flag in recognition of the Humboldt Hockey team bus crash which occurred on April 6, 2018, until such time as the last funeral occurs for the sixteen victims of the fatality. CARRIED

RESOLUTION # 149 - 18/04/16 – West Direct the Governance Committee to research information in regards to policy for occasions to lower the Town of Nanton flag. CARRIED

Recessed the Regular meeting for a brief break at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m. Lisa Lockton and Barry Sturrock left the meeting at 9:23 p.m.

7.1 Personnel Matter – FOIP Section 17 (4)(d)

RESOLUTION # 150 - 18/04/16 - Dozeman IT WAS MOVED to recess the Regular Meeting at 9:26 p.m. in order to hold an “In Camera Meeting” pursuant to Section 197(2) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, Chapter M-26 and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Section17(4)(d). CARRIED

RESOLUTION # 151 – 18/04/16 - Czop IT WAS MOVED to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 9:54 p.m. CARRIED

8. ADJOURNMENT:

RESOLUTION # 152 - 18/04/16 - Dozeman IT WAS MOVED to adjourn the Regular Meeting of Council at 9:55 p.m.

TOWN OF NANTON

CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

MM:ll

These minutes accepted and signed this 7th day of May, 2018.

4 of 4 Regular Council Meeting April 16, 2018. 83 of 113

MINUTES Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm. Conference Room at the Town Office 1907– 21 Avenue

SERVICES COMMITTEE

MEMBERS: Chairperson Terry Wickett and Members John Dozeman, Beryl West and Jennifer Handley (ex-oficio).

OTHERS: Marianne Morrison Interim Chief Administrative Officer Lisa Lockton Legislative Services Andrea Young Peace Officer, MDWC (Nanton) Corporal Travis Ogilvie Nanton RCMP

1. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

1.1 The meeting was called to order by Chair Wickett at 6:31 p.m.

RESOLUTION # 1 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Handley IT WAS MOVED to accept the agenda for the April 19, 2018 Services Committee meeting as distributed. CARRIED

2. DELEGATIONS BY APPOINTMENT: None.

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS & BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES:

3.1 Minutes of the last meeting of the September 26, 2017 Services Committee were accepted at the Regular Meeting of Council held November 20, 2017.

Member Beryl West entered the meeting at 6:43 p.m.

3.1.1 Priortization of 26 Avenue discussion items:

RECOMMENDATION # 1 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Dozeman That Council direct the re-furbishment of the electronic speed sign for use on 26 Avenue and ensure that appropriate signage is installed at the north and south ends of 26 Avenue to advise motorists to exercise caution in this residential area, and further that the issue regarding reduced speed limits for Town of Nanton residential areas, as well as costs and funding options for a speed and traffic counter combination unit be brought forward to the next Services Committee meeting for further discussion. CARRIED

Corporal Travis Ogilivie and Peace Officer Andrea Young left the meeting at 7:37 p.m.

4. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

4.1 Resolution 301/302 – 17/11/20 – Review of Westview pathway upgrade – E

1 of 2 84 of 113

RECOMMENDATION # 2 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Dozeman That consideration of the request by Karen Crawford for the Westview pathway upgrade, initially presented at the Council Meeting of November 20, 2017, be tabled to the next Services Committee Meeting. CARRIED

4.2 Traffic Bylaw # 1214/09 revision - E

RECOMMENDATION # 3 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Dozeman The Services Committee will review Administrative information summarizing the current Town of Nanton Traffic Bylaw #1214/09 with concepts for updating the bylaw, at the next Services Committee Meeting. CARRIED

4.3 Downtown WiFi service provision

RECOMMENDATION # 4 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Handley That Council include the issue of the provision of WiFi service to the Nanton downtown business area for consideration in Council’s Strategic Planning. CARRIED

5. REPORTS: No reports

Member West requested that the issues of a greenspace plan, an updated animal control bylaw and consideration of hen and beekeeping within Nanton be carried forward to ensure items are addressed.

The next meeting will be scheduled for May 30, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.

6. ADJOURNMENT:

RESOLUTION # 2 - 18/04/19 – 20/30 - Dozeman Moved to adjourn the Services Committee meeting at 8:16 p.m.

TOWN OF NANTON

CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL CHAIRPERSON

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

MM:ll

These minutes accepted and signed this 7th day of May, 2018.

2 of 2

Services Committee Meeting April 19, 2018 85 of 113

MINUTES Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers at the Nanton Fire Hall, 2503 – 21 Avenue

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Jennifer Handley and Councillors Victor Czop, John Dozeman, Dan McLelland, Dave Mitchell, Beryl West and Terry Wickett.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marianne Morrison Interim Chief Administrative Officer Lisa Lockton Legislative Services Georgina Sharpe Planning & Development Officer Brian Brown Owner, Nanton Car Wash

1. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:

The Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Handley at 7:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION # 153 - 18/04/23 - Wickett The Special Council meeting agenda for April 23, 2018 was accepted as presented. CARRIED

2. PUBLIC HEARING:

2.1 Bylaw #1301/18 – Land Use Bylaw #1246/13 amendment for re-designation of a portion of Lot 16, all 17, Block 37, Plan 6864FU.

2.1.1 Mayor Handley called the Public Hearing to order at 7:01 p.m. and read:

This Public Hearing is called to order at 7:01 p.m., pursuant to Section 692 of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to hear any submissions regarding the passing of: Bylaw No. 1301/18, to amend Land Use Bylaw 1246/13. The notice of the Public Hearing was duly advertised on April 11,18, 2018 in the Nanton News.

2.1.2 Mayor Handley requested if there have been any written submissions. The submissions from Alberta Transportation and Gavin Scott of Oldman River Regional Services Commission were included with the agenda package information.

2.1.3 There was not anyone present wishing to make any presentations.

2.1.4 Mayor Handley declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:02 p.m.

3. PRIORITY ITEMS:

3.1 Consideration of Land Use Bylaw Amendment #1301/18 – E

RESOLUTION # 154 - 18/04/23 - Mitchell Moved to read Town of Nanton Bylaw #1301/18, a bylaw to amend Land Use Bylaw 1246/13 to redesignate PTN Lot 16 and Lot 17, Block 37, Plan 6864FU from “Retail – General Commercial – C1” to “Highway Commercial – C2”, for the second time. CARRIED 1 of 2 86 of 113

RESOLUTION # 155 - 18/04/23 - McLelland Moved to read Town of Nanton Bylaw #1301/18, for the third and final time. CARRIED

Georgina Sharpe and Brian Brown left the meeting at 7:31 p.m.

3.2 Nanton Health Centre Management Committee – Financial Statements – E

RESOLUTION # 156 - 18/04/23 - Wickett Moved to accept the Financial Statements to December 31, 2017 for the Nanton Health Centre Management Committee, as prepared by BDO Canada LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, attached to these minutes as Schedule “A”. CARRIED

3.3 1st Quarter Financial reports – on table

RESOLUTION #157 - 18/04/23 - Czop Moved to accept the March 31, 2018 first quarter Financial report, as prepared by Marianne Morrison, Corporate Services Manager, as filed for information. CARRIED

3.4 Review of 2018 Budget Amendment with revisions – E

RESOLUTION # 158 - 18/04/23 – Dozeman

Approved changes to the Town of Nanton 2018 budget as follows: Net Change ( in Thousands of $) Administration (Communication) $ (13) Common Services 51 Environmental 53 Parks & Recreation 39 Utility Reserves (25) NET INCREASE REQUIRED FROM TAX $ 105 K

CARRIED

3.5 Discussion of tax rate information was held in conjunction with previous agenda items.

4. ADJOURNMENT:

RESOLUTION # 159 - 18/04/23 – Dozeman IT WAS MOVED to adjourn the Special Meeting of Council at 8:56 p.m.

TOWN OF NANTON

CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

MM:ll

These minutes accepted and signed this 7th day of May, 2018.

2 of 2 Special Council Meeting April 23, 2018. 87 of 113 88 of 113 89 of 113 90 of 113 91 of 113 92 of 113 93 of 113 94 of 113 95 of 113 96 of 113 97 of 113 98 of 113 99 of 113 100 of 113 101 of 113 102 of 113

BYLAW Bylaw Number: 1303/18

A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE RATES OF TAXATION TO BE LEVIED AGAINST ASSESSABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN OF NANTON FOR THE 2018 TAXATION YEAR.

1. ENACTMENT:

WHEREAS, the Town of Nanton has prepared and adopted detailed estimates of municipal revenue, expenses and expenditures as required, at the council meeting held on April 23,2018; and

WHEREAS, the estimated municipal revenues from all sources other than property taxation total $1,430,258 for 2018; and

WHEREAS, the estimated municipal expenses (excluding non cash items) set out in the annual budget for 2017 total $3,808,841 and the balance of $ 2,78,583 is to be raised by general municipal property taxation; and

WHEREAS, the estimated amount required to repay principal debt to be raised by general municipal taxation is $0.00; and

WHEREAS, the estimated amount required for current year capital expenditures to be raised by general municipal taxation is $100,000; and

WHEREAS, the estimated amount required for future financial plans to be raised by municipal taxation is $407,950; and

WHEREAS the total amount to be raised by general municipal taxation is $2,886,533; and

WHEREAS, the requisitions are: Alberta School Foundation Fund (ASFF) - Residential/Farm land $ 636,173 - Non-residential $ 192,337 ______$ 828,510

Seniors Foundation $ 105,932 Designated Industrial Properties $ 127

WHEREAS, the council is authorized to classify assessed property, and to establish different rates of taxation in respect to each class of property, subject to the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26, Revised Statues of Alberta, 2000; and

WHEREAS, the assessed value of all property in the Town of Nanton as shown on the assessment roll is:

Residential $ 255,396,950 Farmland $ 30,820 Non-Residential $ 49,380,060 Linear $ 3,602,610 Machinery and Equipment $ 4,306,610 Total Assessment $ 312,717,050 1 of 2

Bylaw #: 1303/18

103 of 113

NOW THEREFORE under the authority of the Municipal Government Act, the Council of the Municipality of the Town of Nanton, in the Province of Alberta, enacts as follows:

That the Chief Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all property as shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Nanton:

Tax Levy Assessment Tax Rate General Municipal - Residential & Farm land $ 2,164,904 $ 255,427,770 0.0084756 - Non-residential $ 667,386 $ 52,982,670 0.0125963 - Machinery & Equipment $ 54,247 $ 4,306,610 0.0125963 Totals: $ 2,886,537 $ 312,883,550

ASFF (Residential & Farm land) $ 636,168 $ 255,427,770 0.0024906 ASFF (Non-residential) $ 192,337 $ 53,124,170 0.0036319 Totals: $ 828,505 $ 308,551,940

Seniors Foundation $ 105,940 $ 312,858,550 0.0003388

Designated Industrial $ 127 $ 3,718,350 0.0000341

Grand Total: $ 3,821,109

2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND READINGS

2.1 This bylaw shall take effect on the date of the third and final reading.

2.2 READ a first time on this 7st day of May, 2018.

2.3 READ a second time on this 7st day of May, 2018.

2.4 READ a third and final time on this 7st day of May, 2018.

TOWN OF NANTON

CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

2 of 2

Bylaw #: 1303/18

104 of 113 105 of 113 TOWN OF NANTON ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

COUNCIL

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATIVE OFFICER SERVICES

CORPORATE PLANNING & OPERATIONS FIRE CHIEF SERVICES DEVELOPMENT MANAGER MANAGER OFFICER

Deputy Fire LEAD HAND LEAD HAND ADMIN Rec & Event Chief PW REC & FAC SUPPORT Co-or. 1 FTE 1 FTE 1.8 FTE .8 FTE OPER II Volunteer UTIL Fire Fighters 1 FTE OPER II

23 PRKS & FAC OPER II Pool 1 FTE PW Supervisor OPER I 1 FTE UTIL OPER I 1 FTE FAC & PRKS 1 FTE Seasonal Senior Admin Lifeguards OPER I OPER I PW PW .5 FTE 1.5 FTE

Junior LABOURER Lifeguards SEASONAL PW LABOURER 1 FTE

2018-May-01 106 of 113 107 of 113 108 of 113 109 of 113 110 of 113 111 of 113 112 of 113

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST Meeting: May 7, 2018 Agenda Item: 6.1.1

In Progress = IP Completed = C Waiting on 3rd Party = 3

Res Est. Actual Description Stat # Complete Complete

Regular Meeting November 20, 2017 301/302 Review of Westview pathway upgrade CAO/ Services IP Committee

Regular Meeting January 15, 2018 23 OH&S recommendations adopted for THRC Actions IP to IP complete

Regular Meeting February 20, 2018 47 Further consideration of outdoor skating rink IP scheduled at Sept 17/18 Regular Meeting

Regular Meeting March 5, 2018 79 Approved ISL Engineering for THRC ventila- CAO Projects oversee IP tion, dehumidification $104,039 80 Engage ISL Engineering for Action Plan for Operations Mgr oversee IP remediation of THRC - $16,960 83 Special Events update in Traffic Bylaw & 18/04/19 Services Comm C creatation of Policy addressing issue 88 Approved 25 Year Lease w/ Lions Club for Admin / Lions Club IP Campground Lease

Regular Meeting March 19, 2018 110 Not proceeding with Mage Networks proposal Letter sent to Mage, cc: Services mtg – WiFi downtown issue sent to Services Chamber C April 19 Committee to return info to Council June 18/18 111 Organization changes: create Rec & Event Approval of Org Chart to 18/05/07 4.2 Coordinator, name change Ops Mgr, CS Mgr, May 7/18 Reg Council IP amalgamate PW & Rec depts. meeting 112 Further information required re: Remuneration IP Policy – to May 22/18 Council meeting 116 Administration to address Joint Administration has Fire/Emergency services agreement w/MDWC resolved significant issues – matter cont’d under Joint C Fire Agreement Study w/all MDWC Municipalities 117 CAO to work with MDWC to correct issues MDWC in process of with the Joint Quality Management Plan renewing Fire QMP w/ C Nanton as a partner 118 Council to invite MDWC to social meeting IP

Regular Meeting April 2, 2018 131 Public Hearing scheduled April 23/18 scheduled IP April 23/18 135 Approve up to 50% ($5400) for ISL IP Engineering storm water management

1 of 2 113 of 113 Regular Meeting April 16, 2018 140 Accepted 2017 Audited Financial Statements Attach as Schedule “A” C 141/42 Community Bylaw 1299 2nd, 3rd readings C 143 Deferr decision re: 2018 budget amendments April 23/18 IP 144 Approve extension of 8760 Energy contract w/ C additional term Jan 1/22 to Dec 31/22 145 Mayor to sign letter protesting allocation Letter mailed C process for STEP grants 147 Add item 6.5.2 Lowering of Nanton flag C 148 Approved lowering of Nanton flag for End after final funeral C Humboldt bus accident & fatalities service 149 Direct Governance Committee to research IP flag policy for Nanton’s municipal flage

Special Meeting April 23, 2018 154/55 Bylaw #1301/18 LUB amend redesignate ptn C L 16, 17, B 37, Plan 6864FU to C2 156 Nanton Health Centre Mgmt Committee C Financial Statement 2017 accepted 157 1st quarter 2018 Financial report accepted C 158 Approved 2018 budget amendments To be incorporated into C final tax rate information

2 of 2