Skip to main content

Third reading of Bill 60 - The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act

 On Thursday May 20, I spoke at third reading on Bill 60, The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act.  My comments (from Hansard) are below:

Bill 60–The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act (2)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I want to put a few comments and I want to address the situation of use of minors to go deliberately into establishments which are selling liquor or cannabis to purchase liquor, for example, and whether or not this is entrap­ment.

It is certainly duplicity in this sense that the young person who is going in to buy the liquor is, in this case, not going in because the young person wants the liquor, but because the young person has been asked to go in to see if they can try to buy the liquor.

So the young person is going in there with the sole purpose, not of buying liquor to drink, but the sole purpose of trying to get–identify people who will sell liquor to minors, who will break the law. And yes, it's true that this is important to identify people who are breaking the law, and it is true that it is important to stop people from selling to minors, but, at the same time, I still have questions about the use of minors in this circumstance.

      I think that the government should be looking at what the long-term impacts are of having minors go in to try and purchase liquor, not because they want the liquor, but because they want to catch somebody selling liquor to a minor so that that person can be fined or taken to court.

I think we need to be very, very careful with this. It certainly–it doesn't have the sort of, you know, ability to pass the normal smell test. I think that there must be better ways to do this than to have minors trying to do things which they're not really wanting to do; that is, to purchase the liquor to drink it.

That is certainly deceptive, and I don't really think it's a good idea to be training minors to be deceptive in this way. That, I guess, is something that we're going to find out because the government is going to pass this bill and proceed with it even though we on our side have some objections.

      So we won't support this legislation but we rather would like to watch very closely to see how this process works out and what impact it has on the minors who are being asked to do this, really, under false pretenses because they are not really trying to buy liquor to consume it, they are trying to buy liquor in order to catch somebody out.

      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

Pushing for safe consumption sites and safe supply to reduce overdose deaths

  On Monday June 20th, Thomas Linner of the Manitoba Health Coalition, Arlene Last-Kolb Regional Director of Moms Stop the Harm and Winnipeg City Councillor Sherri Rollins were at the Manitoba Legislature to advocate for better measures to reduce deaths from drug overdoses, most particularly for safe consumption sites and for a safe supply, measures which can reduce overdose deaths.  

Dougald Lamont speaks out strongly against the "reprehensible", "legally and morally indefensible" Bill 2

 Early in the morning, just after 3 am, on November 6th, Dougald Lamont spoke at third reading of Bill 2, the Budget Implementation and Statutes Amendment Act.  He spoke strongly against the bill because it attempts to legitimize a historic injustice against children in the care of child and family services.  As  Dougald says this bill is " the betrayal of children, First Nations and the people of this province. " Mr. Dougald  Lamont  (St. Boniface):   These are historic times. This is an  historic budget, for all the wrong reasons.  I was thinking of the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) comments about D-Day today and my relatives who served in combat in the First and Second World War. I had a relative who played for the Blue Bombers and served at D-Day with the Winnipeg Rifles because he was an excellent athlete, he made it quite a long way up the beach.       And had he lived until last year, he might have been one of the veterans the Premier insulted by not showing up at a