Skip to main content

Bill 5–The Cannabis Social Responsibility Fee is not a fee. It is a tax.

 On Thursday March 25, I spoke at second reading on Bill 5, a bill to introduce a social responsibility fee on the purchase of cannabis.  Under questioning the Minister did not provide a clear explanation for how the money raised by the fee would increase social responsibility in the consumption of cannabis.  Further, he provided little evidence he has a plan to increase social responsibility.  This fee is not a social responsibility fee. It is a tax. My comments are below (from Hansard).  

Bill 5–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act
(Cannabis Social Responsibility Fee)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was very disappointed in the minister during the question period that we had, that he was not able to provide a plan for how the monies from the social responsibility fee would be spent, that there was no indication that that money was going to be re-spent responsibly on some evidence-based approach.

      The minister did not indicate that he was going to do any research onto the net benefits and the net costs of the cannabis.

      We know that there are significant savings, significant benefits in certain areas. The–clearly, police don't have to be running around and giving out our charges on people who have got cannabis in their possession anymore, and so there are some savings in that area. There are clearly some definite health benefits.

There are also some net, you know, harms. But we don't know what the balance is, and the minister is not, from anything that he told us, providing a convincing story that he's actually going to measure those.

      So when we look at this, we see and have come to the conclusion that this is not a social responsibility; this is just a straight tax. And we oppose this tax. We don't think a tax is the appropriate approach here, and so we will vote against it.

      Thank you.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comparison between Manitoba and South Dakota shows dramatic impact of Physical Distancing

Manitoba implemented physical distancing measures in mid-March.  South Dakota has still not made physical distancing mandatory.   The result is a dramatic difference in the incidence of covid-19 viral infections between the two jurisdictions.   This graph shows the number of people with Covid-19 infections from March 27 to April 14.  Manitoba ( red line )  started leveling off about April 4 and has seen only a small increase in Covid-19 infections since then.   South Dakota ( blue line )   has seen a dramatic increase in Covid-19 infections since April 4.  Those who are skeptical of the impact of physical distancing in Manitoba should look at this graph! Data are from the Johns Hopkins daily tabulations

Karen Keppler 1953 - 2020

  Karen was an incredible person who helped so many people. She had a heart of gold. Back in 1994 to 1997 we worked closely together to help communities all over Manitoba get connected to the internet. In the years since she has done amazing things.   She has served as Chair of the Winnipeg Library Foundation and helped with raising money for the expansion of the Millenium Library.    She helped many people to get new opportunities through the Selkirk and District Learning Centre and through her activities at the University of Winnipeg and the Herzing College.   She was an entrepreneur who helped many people move forward and start successful businesses.  Karen was very concerned about her community.  In she was   the Manitoba Liberal Party candidate in Sekirk constituency.   When the COVID pandemic came, Karen was really helpful in an effort to get computers for kids in need so that they could learn at home. Even recently when I was working to understand lead pollution and lead effects

PCs hiding availability of volunteering benefits from EIA Recipients

More than I month ago, I was approached by Tara St. Laurent.  Because of her disability she is unable to work and is on EIA.  But she loves volunteering when she can with the Winnipeg Human Society.  When the Covid-19 pandemic hit and Manitoba went into lockdown, she was no longer able to volunteer as before.  She missed the $100 benefit which was critical for her to be able to purchase her food to eat.  She asked me if there was a possibility of seeing if she could still get the benefit.  I wrote a letter to Heather Stefanson the Minister of Families to make this request and she said yes.  However, actually getting the benefit took some time, and a direct intervention with Tara's worker to ensure she got the benefit, which she is now getting.  I had expected that Minister Stefanson would notify other EIA recipients who have been volunteering that they are eligible for the benefit.  Sadly, this did not happen, so the availability of this benefit has been largely unknown.   When I