2016 AKBLG Resolutions

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON
REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

DATE:
TOPIC:
PROPOSAL:
February 1, 2016 Regular

Call for 2016 AKBLG Resolutions
Second call for 2016 resolutions for the Association of Kootenay
Boundary Local Governments (AKBLG) to be held in Kimberley in
April 2016
PROPOSED BY: Staff
_____________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
In advance of the 2016 AKBLG Annual General Meeting (in Kimberley) the City of
Nelson has received two requests and a final call for resolutions for consideration at the
AGM to be held in Kimberley from April 27 29, 2016. Council direction is required for
timely submission of resolutions from the City of Nelson.
BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS:

Each year local governments in the Kootenay Boundary region receive notice of the
AKBLG Annual General Meeting and are requested to submit resolutions for the AGM in
advance of the meeting. The deadline for resolutions is Monday, February 26, 2016.
Resolutions are required in the format specified on or before the deadline in order to be
considered at the 2016 AGM. Resolutions that pass at the AKBLG AGM are presented
at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Annual Convention each year.
AKBLG Resolutions for the past two years can be reviewed on the AKBLG website.
LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES:
Section 10 of the AKBLG Constitution provides firm rules resolutions. It is important to
note that
Special Resolutions are any resolution pertaining to a new issue that has
arisen between the deadline and the AGM. Special Resolutions require a two-thirds
vote in support of consideration prior to being introduced onto the floor of the AGM, and
may only be introduced after all Ordinary Resolutions have been considered or if two
thirds of the Delegates present determine to hear the resolution immediately; and
Late Resolutions are held over to the next AGM.
Background materials and a brief statement of any previous actions taken on the matter
are also required in support of each resolution. Resolutions may only contain two
Whereas clauses.
COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION:
There are no costs associated with preparation of AKBLG Resolutions.
IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES:
Certified Council resolutions with relevant background information are sent to the
AKBLG as directed by Council each year.
COMMUNICATION:
Resolutions are submitted electronically to the AKBLG on City letterhead.
OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES:

1.
Prepare and submit City of Nelson resolutions for 2016 AKBLG AGM
2.
Do not submit resolutions for the 2016 AKBLG AGM
3.
Refer to staff with other direction
ATTACHMENTS:
Final call for 2016 AKBLG Resolutions
Proposed resolutions with background information relating to
1. Capital funding for hospitals
2. Improvements to the income assistance service delivery
3. Marijuana legislation
4. Marijuana revenues
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council direct staff regarding City of Nelson resolutions for submission to the
Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Government Association Annual General
Meeting to be held April 27-29, 2016 in Kimberley, BC.
AUTHOR:
REVIEWED BY:
_______________________________
DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER
______________________________
CITY MANAGER
DRAFT RESOLUTION #1
THAT the following recommendation be endorsed by Nelson City Council and submitted
to the Association of Kootenay & Boundary Local Governments at the Annual General
Meeting to be held in Kimberley on April 27 - 29, 2016
Regional Hospital District Capital Funding
WHEREAS Regional Hospital Districts were created by provincial legislation to raise a

local share of capital costs for hospital equipment and building through property
taxation with the local share historically held at 40% for regional hospital capital
projects with the Province contributing 60%;
AND WHEREAS: local governments have limited ways to generate funding to pay for
local services and infrastructure since property taxes are the primary source of revenue
and are being stretched to meet the diverse demands local governments already face
and cannot sustain the increased load in meeting hospital board expenditures.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Union of BC Municipalities petition the provincial government to acknowledge that
property tax revenue is an unsuitable avenue to fund hospital infrastructure renewal
projects, and prioritizes the urgent review of the historic cost sharing ratio with a
recommendation to amend current policy accordingly.
STRENGTHENING THE CAPITAL PLANNING AND COST

SHARING PROCESS EMERGING DIRECTIONS FOR CHANGE
A REVIEW OF THE 2003 COST SHARING REVIEW
FINAL REPORT
DECEMBER 2008
Submitted to:
Messrs. Al Richmond and Kevin Brewster, CoChairs
UBCM and MOHS Steering Committee
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 1: WHY THE PROJECT WAS UNDERTAKEN...............................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT FOR CAPITAL FUNDING IN B.C.............................................................................................9
CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATION BY RECOMMENDATION REVIEW AND UPDATE................................................ 10
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD ............................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 5: HIGH LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 6: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 31
Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Final Report December 2008
Acknowledgements
This review would not have been possible without the involvement of many people. The
consultants wish to acknowledge all of the individuals who took the time to participate, either
in interviews or by supporting the formal survey responses prepared by RHDs and Health
Authorities.
We also want to thank the members of the Steering Committee and Working Group members
for their support and guidance. Those, in alphabetical order, are:
Capital Regional Hospital District
!
Leif Wergeland Director
! Rajat Sharma Manager Health Facilities Planning Division

CaribooChilcotin Regional Hospital District
!
Al Richmond Chair
! Lynn Paterson Treasurer

Interior Health Authority
!
Chris Mazurkewich Chief Financial Officer
! Nicola Huppertz Corporate Director, Facilities Management

Ministry of Health Services
!
Manjit Sidhu Assistant Deputy Minister
Kevin Brewster Executive Director, Capital Planning
! Scarlette Verjinschi Director, Capital Services

Northern Health Authority
!
Barry Cheal Chief Financial Officer
! Mike Hoefer Executive Director, Capital Planning and Support Services

Northwest Regional Hospital District
!
Tony Briglio Chair
! Joan Rysavy Administrator

Union of BC Municipalities
!
Ella Brown Chair, Healthy Communities Committee
Robert Hobson President (20082009)
Susan Gimse President (20072008)
Gary MacIsaac Executive Director
Marylyn Chiang Policy Analyst
Vancouver Island Health Authority

! Bill Boomer VicePresident & Chief Financial Officer
!
Chris Sullivan Director, Capital Planning
iCapital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Executive Summary
In 2003, the Ministry of Health Services undertook a review of the cost sharing processes
established through legislation between the Ministry of Health Services (MOHS), Health
Authorities (HAs), and the Regional Hospital Districts (RHDs). The review was conducted
through stakeholder consultation and resulted in a report Ministry of Health Services
Regional Hospital District Cost Sharing Review which tabled 15 recommendations to address
the issues and concerns of key stakeholders.
A key recommendation of the 2003 review was the need to review the implementation status
of recommendations resulting from the review.
The Ministry of Health should review the capital cost sharing process three years after
implementation to assess whether the Health authorities and RHDs have developed effective
working relationships and are fulfilling the intent of the recommendations.
A 2007 status report developed by representatives from RHDs in BC reiterated many of the
concerns that local governments have regarding their relations with the Health Authorities.
Following the 2007 status update, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and the BC Ministry
of Health Services decided to undertake a further review to measure the progress made on
implementing the recommendations of the 2003 Regional Hospital District (RHD) Cost Sharing
Review.
The mandate given to the consultants include:
! The need to review and comment on any barriers that may have affected
implementation of prior recommendations;
! The need to provide advice on how to move forward and achieve implementation of the
underlying intent of prior recommendations; and
! Comment on any new issues that may have been brought forth during the process.
The process was designed to enable significant stakeholder input, both through an interview
process as well as a formal survey. Representatives from the RHDs (23 in total), the Health
Authorities (five of the six participated as PHSA does not have a relationship with any RHDs)
and the Ministry of Health Services all participated. Their input served to inform the process
leading the Review Team to conclude that, while many of the relationship issues previously
reported on are now seen to be improving, there continue to be some concerns related to:
!
Predictability of Funding Requirements
Roles and Relationships
Process Issues
Implementation Framework
2Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

The report provides recommendations under each of the categories noted above. The 11
recommendations identified in this report are:
R1.
The Provincial Government, through the Ministry of Health Services, is asked to

commit to the development of a long range health infrastructure capital plan no
later than the 2010/2011 fiscal year. The plan should provide for a minimum
planning horizon of three years, with a long term goal of five to tenyear plans.
R2.
The RHDs and HAs are asked to define fixed funding amount that will provide
increased predictability of the funding obligations of the RHDs for the majority of all
capital initiatives including minor equipment, major equipment, facility renovations
and routine capital development projects. This fixed amount should be confirmed
for an initial period of three years and then updated in three year cycles based on
the long range plans established by Government.
R3.
HAs are asked to develop draft capital plans and identify which initiatives it intends
to support using the RHD fixed share. Updates to those plans as well as planned and
actual use of funds should be part of the regular reporting at scheduled meetings.
R4.
The MOHS is asked to work with the HAs and RHDs to update/confirm the definition
of capital. This definition should identify a dollar value for large building projects
that will be considered outside of the fixed funding model contemplated in
Recommendation #2.
R5.
The MOHS and HAs are asked to develop educational materials to define the P3
alternate financing model more clearly to all parties, ensuring that any such material
addresses concerned noted previously in this report.
R6.
The MOHS, RHDs and HAs are asked to clarify principles and mechanisms required to
improve communication and enable a more robust process for joint dialogue on key
issues related to the overall context within which capital planning decisions are
being made.
R7.
HAs and RHDs are asked to continue with the development of processes to ensure
regular meetings are scheduled between representatives of the Boards of the HAs
(e.g. Board Chair) and the RHDs to:
! Enable communication of key strategic and operational initiatives that
are underway within the HA as they relate to capital planning and
development;
! Provide a forum to support a joint dialogue on key issues for both the
HAs and RHDs;
! Offer the RHDs an ability to identify specific questions or concerns they
have regarding health care delivery in their communities; and
! Discuss potential capital priorities.

Both HA and RHD should have the opportunity to influence the agenda for these
meetings and adequate time should be planned to allow for both formal and
informal discussions.
R8.
HAs and RHDs are asked to schedule semiannual meetings between RHD staff and
the appropriate staff from the HA. These should be viewed as working meetings
and could be coscheduled with the formal Board dialogue sessions suggested
above. In this model, the RHD must be willing to accept the HAs authority to
designate the most appropriate person(s) to represent them at these meetings.
R9.
HAs and RHDs are asked to define mechanisms to allow for ad hoc updates outside
of regularly scheduled meetings to ensure timely communication of issues occurs
between staff (and possibly the Boards).
R10.
The RHDs and HAs are asked to share current templates and tools to be used to
support improved communication, project management and cost updates. The
intent is to create a toolkit to increase consistency of tools used across all HAs and
RHDs.
R11.
The MOHS is asked to update the legislation to reflect a new definition of capital.
R12.
The MOHS is asked to take the lead implementation role, to ensure that a detailed
implementation workplan is developed jointly with UBCM, the HAs and RHDs.
R13.
The UBCM is asked to monitor implementation progress on a semiannual basis and

request explanation of any variances to the workplan.

Chapter 1: Why the Project Was Undertaken

INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND
In 2003, Sierra Systems was engaged by the Ministry of Health Services to conduct a review of
the cost sharing processes established through legislation between the Ministry of Health
Services (MOHS), Health Authorities (HAs), and the Regional Hospital Districts (RHDs). The 2003
review considered the following questions:
1. What is the appropriate role for RHDs in capital planning and contribution decisions?
What is required to implement the appropriate role?
2. What are the capital process concerns of the RHDs, Health Authorities, and the
Ministry? What is required to simplify the processes and address the concerns?
The review was conducted through stakeholder consultation and resulted in a report Ministry
of Health Services Regional Hospital District Cost Sharing Review which tabled 15
recommendations to address the issues and concerns of key stakeholders. Issues identified
were categorized into four themes:
1. Accountability
2. Definition of Capital
3. Procedure
4. Structure
A key recommendation of the 2003 review was the need to review the implementation status
of recommendations resulting from the review.
A status report developed by representatives from RHDs in BC was presented in September
2007 to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention session on relations with health
authorities, reiterating the concern that local governments have regarding their relations with
the Health Authorities. The report also offered a preliminary review of the progress made on
implementing the recommendations of the 2003 Review.
Resulting from the September 2007 session, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and the BC
Ministry of Health Services (MOHS) decided to undertake a review to measure the progress
made on implementing the recommendations of the 2003 Regional Hospital District (RHD) Cost
Sharing Review. Corpus Sanchez International Consultancy Inc. was selected as an external
consultant to conduct this review based on their experience in conducting related and similar
reviews in British Columbia and other Canadian jurisdictions. The review, under the direction of
the Steering Committee was to result in a report that specifically outlined the implementation
progress made on all 15 recommendations. Although it was recognized that there may be the
need to discuss new issues arising since the 2003 review, the steering committee chose to focus
directly on the issues of the 2003 report.
The sections of this report will outline that five years later, there has been some movement on
recommendations but many concerns continue. There is also a general sense that the system
has not fully implemented the recommendations; however, it was recognized through this
review that relationships, processes and communication between all three parties MOHS, HAs
and RHDs have improved considerably and the environment under which joint capital
planning is conducted today is vastly improved over what was occurring when the initial review
was conducted in 2003.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

When this review was undertaken, the Steering Committee provided clear direction on the
scope for the review and expectations for the resulting report of findings in that the overall
objective of this assignment
Phases
Timelines
was to review progress made
Phase 1: Project Mobilization
July 2008
on
implementing
the
recommendations of the 2003
Phase 2: Developing Baseline Planning Framework
July/August 2008
Regional
Hospital District
(RHD) Cost Sharing Review.
Phase 3: Stakeholder Engagement
August/September 2008
The consultants under took a
five phase process to reach the
desired outcome.
Phase 4: Issues/Opportunities Identification
October 2008
Phase 5: Reporting
October 2008
PHASE 1: PROJECT MOBILIZATION JULY 2008

Phase 1 focused on confirming the project management structure and membership for the
review Steering Committee. The first interactions between the consultants and the steering
committee were focused on Steering Committee interviews, which were designed to confirm
scope and highlight issues or concerns in advance.
In addition to interviews with key leaders, this phase initiated data and information collection
activities. Information formally requested as part of this review included:
!
Health Authority/Regional Hospital District Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs);
Minutes of Joint Meetings between the above 2 parties;
RHD Board members and Contact Information;
Policies, procedures and definitions related to capital funding;
Financial data on capital spending;
Any applicable background information/documentation on projects funded outside of

the 40% cost sharing model; and
Lists of stakeholders to be contacted during the consultation process, including but not
limited to senior representations for MOHS, HAs, and RHDs

PHASE 2: DEVELOPING BASELINE PLANNING FRAMEWORK JULY/AUGUST 2008

Phase 2 focused on developing a baseline of information that helped to inform the cost sharing
review.
The first component of work that needed to be completed during this phase included reviewing
the relevant previous studies undertaken as well as other internal reviews and reports that had
been conducted. This phase was undertaken to serve two purposes: (1) to inform the current
state assessment, and (2) to begin to identify any barriers that have been experienced in the
past that need to be incorporated into the change management plan that will ultimately be
required to implement recommendations of this review.
PHASE 3: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2008

As previously discussed, critical to a review of this kind is the need to consult with key
stakeholders engaged in the cost sharing process. The information gathered through this phase
was used to inform future solutions and scenarios. This consultation was accomplished in two
parts one through a qualitative interview process with identified individuals and/or groups
and through a process of written survey submissions responding specifically to the 15
recommendations of the 2003 report. The results of the survey submission will be discussed
later in this report. Invitations to participate in this interview process were sent to the
following:
!
Selected members of UBCM;
Executive members of all RHDs (e.g. Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer);
Senior administrative staff from RHDs;
Representatives from Senior Leadership of Health Authorities (e.g. CEO, VP, Planning,
CFO);
Representatives from the Ministry of Health Services; and
Others identified by the Steering Committee, MOHS, HAs and RHDs.
The majority of these interviews were conducted by teleconference and where circumstances
allowed some were conducted facetoface with individuals in focus groups. Approximately 70
stakeholders were interviewed out of 91 invited (77% participation). It was felt by both the
review team and the Steering Committee that this level of participation was significant given
that the review was undertaken during the Summer months and considering the many ongoing
priorities all stakeholders are presented with on a daytoday basis.
PHASE 4: OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION AND FOLLOWUP STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Throughout the review process, the CSI team brought together all of our findings to define the
key issues and Emerging Directions for Change. The purpose of this has included:
!
Identification of innovative solutions to address current system issues;

Consider strategic and operational improvements that can be implemented in the

immediate and longer terms;
Outline preliminary recommendations surrounding priority issues; and
Identifying change management issues that will need to be addressed.
An interim summary of general themes and findings from the qualitative interviews and survey
submissions were presented to the steering committee on September 15, 2008 in preparation
for a further validation of themes by stakeholders at the UBCM Convention in Penticton.
In preparation for the final report, an opportunity was provided for stakeholders already
attending the UBCM convention to meet to discuss themes and findings arising from the
consultation phase of the review. It was also an opportunity to provide feedback to these
themes and to discuss recommendations and directions for the upcoming report. Invited to
this meeting were RHD Executive members, Administrators & Senior staff, as well as self
identified representatives from Health Authorities and the Ministry of Health Services to
participate in this joint session. Information gathered through this joint session validated the
information gathered throughout the review and provided critical communication and input to
the directions of this final report.
PHASE 5: REPORTING OCTOBER 2008

This phase focused on issuing two reports: a draft report that was used to facilitate discussion
by the steering committee and a final formal report which details the work of the entire project
(which is this report).

Chapter 2: Context for Capital Funding in B.C.

Prior to discussing any findings or recommendations arising from this review, it is important to
consider how the capital planning and funding environment has changed over time, as this
helps to define the atmosphere within which the various funding partners are currently
working.
Capital funding requirements for public infrastructure are seen to be growing at a rate that is
outpacing the ability of tax revenues to meet the demand. This is linked to past decisions to
defer investments in infrastructure, including facilities, equipment and Information
Management / Information Technology. As a result of these combined issues, there is now a
significant investment required to sustain the current healthcare assets. In addition, the
demands for capital requirements to keep pace with population growth, the aging
demographic, the implementation of new innovations, and redesign of the health care delivery
system, all have significant planning impacts.
There is a sense from the HAs and RHDs that the needs of health care far exceed the total
capital funding availability from all funding sources MOHS, RHDs and Foundations. Given this
context, some RHDs are concerned about the expectation surrounding 40% for any project.
While this is described as voluntary, some RHDs have a tax base that is not always capable to
match the funding request, which leads to an underlying fear that if the 40% is not available
from the RHD, that projects will go elsewhere leading to community inequity.
The capital issue is complicated by the fact that capital planning for the HA has been defined
more broadly than the original definition under the Hospital District Act. The expanded
definition represents an ongoing issue of concern for RHDs and needs to be addressed.
Finally, as the BC healthcare system has significant operating costs, there will continue to be a
need to have redesign initiatives, some of which will require capital investment to achieve the
cost efficiency and help enable the system to address operational issues (e.g. health human
resources pressures) and match the healthcare needs over the next 10 to 20 years. Given the
potential impact of operational issues on capital, the HAs will need to provide the RHDs with a
longer term perspective on the capital plans and the benefit of the investment to the larger
community needs.

Chapter 3: Recommendation By Recommendation Review and Update

As previously discussed in this report, the review included stakeholder consultations through an
interview process. As a component of consultations, and supplementary to interviews that
were undertaken with key stakeholders from the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), Regional
Hospital Districts (RHDs), Health Authorities (HAs), and the Ministry of Health Services (MOHS),
participation was requested in completion of a survey submission.
From the 15 recommendations of the 2003 Sierra review and status of implementation,
respondents were asked to identify the top 5 recommendations that reflect their greatest
concern at this time, and respond to the following five (5) specific questions for each they
identified. The questions were as follows:
1. What is the current status of implementation of this recommendation for your RHD or
HA?
2. What are the barriers to full implementation of this recommendation?
3. Are there any new significant new issues or concerns that have arisen during the
implementation process?
4. What are the risks and critical success factors in implementing the recommendation?
5. In order to fully implement the recommendation for your RHD or HA, what are your
recommendations on how to successfully move forward with implementation?
14 of 23 RHDs and four (4) of five (5) geographicallybased HAs1 responded to the survey. It is
noted above that survey respondents were asked to note the top 5 recommendations that
reflect their greatest concern at this time, however, it should be noted that many did not
prioritize their responses (i.e. they noted all recommendations as important or noted five
recommendations, but did not state which of the five was deemed most important).
The intent in asking for the information to be clustered around top 5 issues was to determine
which of the issues continue to be of greatest concern and then focus the discussion of the
2003 Recommendations around those issues. Given the variation in responses, this section of
the report has been prepared to reflect an update on all recommendations, presented in their
original order, as opposed to in order of potential current priority.
That is not intended to suggest that the survey responses were not valuable. Indeed, survey
responses were collated and integrated with the additional qualitative input obtained through
the individual and group interviews to provide a consolidated set of observations on each of the
original 2003 Recommendations. These observations are presented below.
Note: PHSA was not included in the study as none of their programs have an RHD partner
10
10
Sierra Recommendation 1: RHD contributions are voluntary. The onus must rest with the
Health Authority to develop and maintain effective working relationships with the RHDs in its
region.
2007 RHD Observations2:
20 of the 23 Regional Hospital Districts originally signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Agreements with their Health Authorities. Some of the RHDs have subsequently considered
those MOUs to not be in force and have chosen not to renew them. Some also have
independent protocol agreements. Relations and communications have been improving in
most cases.
2008 Review Observations:
The Sierra report noted that the model leads to a dual accountability circumstance in which
RHDs are accountable to their local taxpayers while the Health Authorities are accountable for
health outcomes to the Minister and the Government of BC. This duality is the underlying
cause of much of the tension surrounding the relationship and the funding model.
The Review team found that relationships continue to be a significant issue surrounding cost
sharing. Despite reported improvements in relationships, many RHDs continue to express some
concern surrounding the need to be viewed as true partners in the larger health care delivery
system, and not just a funding source for capital projects. While this will be discussed in more
length in the next section of this report (Overarching Themes), this is grounded in a larger issue
surrounding lack of clarity and consensus on roles for the RHDs and the need to address the
accountability relationship that they have with the local electorate, as flagged by Sierra in 2003.
With regard to the issue of voluntary contributions, most RHDs acknowledge that they
theoretically can (and some do) refuse to approve the full 40% project requests from HAs, but
they feel that it is risky to do so as the project could be placed at risk and the local community
could lose needed investments.
The 40% cost sharing issue is also complicated when an HA is considering consolidation of
services in Regional Centres. When this happens, the local RHD (i.e. the one that is in the
community where the Regional Centre may be established) would likely be asked to cost share
a facility that serves a larger geographic area. Future funding processes may need to consider
how this issue will be addressed.
The RHD Observations were included in an update report from 2007 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other two
partners in this process the MOHS or the HAs.
11
11
Sierra Recommendation 2: Health Authorities must be unfettered by costsharing

requirements in their ability to provide required health services regardless of the fiscal capacity
of a region.
2007 RHD Observations:
RHDs have been approached for funds and the availability of their 40% has been a dealbreaker.
May be problematic for smaller communities to provide 40% but community still requires the
facilities.
The Sierra report noted that this recommendation was intended to reflect the concept that
decision making for capital could, and should, be buffered from the political process so that the
HAs could be true to their mandate to deliver services and achieve improvements in health
outcomes. The intent was to remove the Ministry from the traditional capital process and
allow the Health Authorities to deliver their complex mandates. And yet, the reality (as noted
under Recommendation 1), is that the RHDs carry an accountability to local taxpayers that is
grounded in a political relationship model. So even if the provincial government was successful
at extricating itself from a political model, the RHDs would continue to have this link.
The entire issue is complicated, but the general agreement from stakeholders is that HAs are
not unfettered and political realities may make it challenging to address this recommendation
in the short term. The largest barrier is the sense that capital needs far exceed the ability to
fund initiatives and hence government will need to maintain a high degree of control over
capital decisions.
That being said, there is a sense that the process can be more transparent (e.g. rationale for
decisions shared with all parties), can proceed with more clarity (e.g. capital more clearly
defined) and can be pursued through a more cooperative model where all partners feel
appropriately involved and engaged (e.g. relationships continue to evolve and improve).
The MOHS had been developing a tool to address prioritization and funding linkages. The tool,
first developed in 2007, included a mechanism to reflect a pointsbased system that can help to
inform prioritization decisions. In its initial form, the tool included a bonus point component
that recognized the availability of RHD funding as a factor that could increase the point value
for a project. This raises a concern that the capacity of an individual RHD to provide funding
can influence a final decision, which would not be consistent with the concept of the HA being
unfettered by costsharing requirements in their ability to provide required health services
regardless of the fiscal capacity of a region.
12
12
Sierra Recommendation 3: RHDs should not be expected to contribute more than 40% of new
projects.
Several RHDs cited examples of being asked to contribute 100% towards locally identified
priorities.
The Sierra report discussed the fact that capital projects involve HA, RHD and Foundation
(philanthropic) funding sources and the intent of the recommendation was to note that funding
decisions must be a result of sound information exchanges, discussion and open decisions by
the RHDs.
Linked to the discussion surrounding Recommendation 1, RHDs report that 40% is expected and
debate or discussion is not always welcomed or encouraged. At the same time, a few RHDs
report that they have been told that they can fast track a lower priority initiative if they choose
to fund 100% of the costs. This raises two possible concerns regarding the longer term
expectations of funding projects more than 40%:
!
Decisions to support some projects at 100% could limit an RHDs ability to pay for other
initiatives, even if that request is only for 40%, and
It could set a precedent whereby other RHDs could be expected to fund projects at
100%.
Despite these possible concerns, the majority of RHDs report that they want to retain the
flexibility to fund projects at, below or above the general guideline of 40%.
Sierra Recommendation 4: The Health Authority must develop budgets and plans to construct,
acquire and maintain capital assets.
Plans for new capital projects need to be accompanied by a commitment to staff those new
facilities.
The Sierra reports description of this recommendation noted that the capital planning role of
the Health Authorities logically leads to a consideration of what happens in the event of a cost
overrun on a particular project. Traditionally, there has been an expectation that management
of such issues would be jointly managed between the local health organization and the RHDs,
but the underlying principle is that the Health Authorities take responsibility for cost overruns
while maintaining the capacity to seek RHD support as needed. This is closely linked to the
next recommendation.
13
13
The 2007 RHD Observations Update shifts the discussion to the need to ensure that HAs
commit to funding operational costs if they request capital funding support from an RHD. On
this point, we note that, intuitively, any plan to build a facility suggests that the organization
in this case the Health Authority is committed to operating that facility. At the same time,
capital projects can take years to complete, during which time a number of unforeseen factors
can affect the plan, such as: human resource changes that affect the ability to staff and deliver
care, changes to operating or capital funding, construction cost escalation, changes in
government and changes in HA & RHD staff. These realities may impact the ability of the HA to
follow through on the original intent and they must have the ability to adapt plans as needed.
Another issue is the need to tie planning commitments to long term funding commitments
and this requires commitments to budgeting strategies beyond a oneyear planning horizon.
Sierra Recommendation 5: Budgetary overruns or delays should become the responsibility of

the Health Authority. RHDs may still choose to help fund overruns.
Problems encountered when project additions over time increase costs, and the 40% share
increases as a result.
Sierra noted that this recommendation (coupled with #4 above) was intended to provide the
best possible opportunity for the development of real partnerships at the local level while
meeting fundamental principles related to the need to balance the RHDs local accountability
with delivery of the HAs mandate. As of 2008, the issue remains the same the RHDs expect to
be viewed as equal partners in the planning process, and are generally willing to commit to the
original request when this partnership is in place. However, when overruns occur, the need to
go back and raise more money can cause issues, especially if a bylaw has been formally raised
and approved to provide the original contribution. Raising a second bylaw on a previously
approved project to address overruns can be problematic. Notwithstanding this, RHDs want to
ensure that the ability to decline to pay for overruns should be maintained.
14
14
Sierra Recommendation 6: For the purposes of RHD cost sharing, the categories of capital
should be simplified:
a. Projects or single pieces of equipment with a value of less than $100,000
b. Projects or equipment with a value greater than $100,000
c. The classification of equipment value must take into account the overall value of a
system of which a single piece of equipment is a part.
d. P3s require the development of clear accounting definitions to recognize ownership.
RHDs are concerned with clear accountability in P3 projects.
The lack of consensus surrounding the definition of capital continues to be an issue as RHDs
express ongoing concerns that it is no longer clear how their contributions are being used.
RHDs are also concerned that they are now being asked to contribute to an everwidening set
of projects that reflect the HA mandate, but are at odds with the original focus outlined in
legislation (e.g. hospital facilities and equipment versus long term care facilities and
information technology).
Beyond the question surrounding definition of capital, P3 continues to be a concern for some
RHDs. Some of this relates to the local accountability issue and the public perception that local
jobs will be lost due to P3s. There is also a concern that the P3 model results in contributions of
taxpayer money to a forprofit entity.
Most of these concerns reflect a general
misunderstanding of the P3 model and the controls that the Provincial Government has put in
place to ensure that the publics interest is met. Given this, the MOHS and HAs should provide
additional information on the P3 transactions to allow the RHD to understand the transaction,
ownership of assets, the risk transfer and also the value for money proposition in P3s.
Sierra Recommendation 7: RHDs should allocate lumpsum contributions to minor items below
$100,000.
Require a better definition of minor capital items to ensure that RHDs are not funding
operational costs.
The majority of RHDs provide lumpsum funding for minor capital items and there seems to be
limited concern about this model. One issue is that some RHDs want assurances that these
contributions are being used appropriately and that processes exist for effective reporting and
accountability back to the RHD regarding any expenditures drawn from the lumpsum funding.
15
15
This process is in place for most RHDs and HAs, but needs to be in place consistently on a
provincewide basis.
At the same time, some RHDs stress that contributions remain voluntary and need to be subject
to appropriate processes for joint discussion and approval.
Sierra Recommendation 8: A change in the definition of capital should not increase the overall
ratio of financial contribution of the RHDs or require RHDs to assume new debt beyond
historical and projected funding levels for traditional hospital capital projects.
RHDs are concerned that they are being asked to fund a broader range of projects.
This issue is directly linked to the definition of capital (discussed under Recommendation #6)
and reflects a need to gain consensus on two issues: renewed definition and the concept that
contributions are indeed voluntary.
The biggest concern for RHDs is related to overall affordability given a growing number of
potential projects which could limit the RHDs ability to fund projects which local taxpayers have
traditional supported (e.g. new hospital facilities).
There is also some concern that any commitment to maintaining historical funding levels
assumes that historical funding is somehow a predictor of actual need, which all parties agree is
not the case, If the principle of maintaining historical levels is accepted, some are also
concerned that it could be used to entrench historical variation/inequities in funding levels
between RHDs
Sierra Recommendation 9: Implementation of the recommendations process should begin in
the fall of 2003 with a joint planning meeting between each Health Authority and its RHDs.
Sierra Recommendation 10: Health Authorities should move towards a 5year rolling capital
plan and a standard communication process.
Numerous RHDs were concerned that the Health Authorities did not have funding
commitments from the Ministry of Health Services beyond one year and therefore operated on
one year planning timelines.
As noted previously, both the RHDs and the HAs express significant frustration at the inability to
plan beyond one year due to the fact that MOHS is only authorized to provide firm
commitments in oneyear cycles. For the RHDs, this leads to unpredictability in cash flow
planning and management and a perception of increased risk. For the HAs, it leads to
frustrations surrounding the ability to develop concrete plans for infrastructure investment.
16
16
Sierra Recommendation 11: In the fall, before Health Authority and RHD budgets are finalized
a joint planning meeting (or series of meetings) should be held to discuss the content of the
Health Authoritys fiveyear capital plan.
Last minute funding requests from Health Authorities are difficult for RHDs to deal with.
This recommendation is directly linked to the inability to date to develop a process that allows
for fiveyear plans, but it also goes to the heart of the relationship issue described previously.
Many RHDs have expressed frustration with the regular planning meetings in the past, noting
that they did not feel that the meeting reflected the true spirit of a partnership (as
contemplated by the 2003 Sierra report). On a positive note, most RHD`s report that the
relationships are improving and some have specifically noted that the regular meetings are
becoming more productive and valuable.
Sierra Recommendation 12: The joint planning meeting should be used to meet education
objectives by providing an opportunity for the Health Authority to explain its planning
assumptions as well as the specific health outcomes that it is pursuing.
Sierra Recommendation 13: The midcycle meeting reviews the fiveyear capital plans and
discusses any necessary amendments.
Sierra Recommendation 14: A regular cyclical process is recommended to eliminate
coordination issues.
Some RHDs still feel that they are approached with already decided plans and budgets simply
asked to make their contribution rather than provide local input into planning processes. RHDs
still feel that the coordination of different budget cycles creates difficulties. Cash management
is also an issue where the RHD has committed to funding a project and the HA does not request
the funds in a timely manner.
As noted above, the relationships between HAs and RHDs appear to be improving and the
dialogue is becoming more focused on enhancing the partnership. Notwithstanding this, there
is an ongoing need for attention to these relationships and processes for improved
communication and team building. All of the meeting forums need to be designed to
strengthen communication processes, build better working relationships and balance the
duality of accountability that is structurally built into the funding model. With the different
budget cycles, there may be an opportunity for both HAs and RHD to meet in the fall of the
17
17
calendar year to share the priorities and RHDs could determine funding ability and potentially
provide tentative approval of the funding subject to final MOHS approval of the project.
Sierra Recommendation 15: Specific reference to hospitals and hospital facilities should be
replaced with a broader definition of what is eligible for cost sharing.
The Hospital District Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 202 still contains references to hospitals and
hospital facilities.
The Act remains outdated and may need to be revised to reflect the current day practice.
While some revisions reportedly were made to legislation, most feel that more are required to
update the roles, responsibilities, and processes. At the same time, it was noted at the
Steering Committee meeting that there may have been a decision after the 2003 Review that
changes to the Act could be overly restrictive and, given the voluntary nature of the funding
partnership, may be unnecessary. In other words, if contributions are voluntary on the part of
the RHD, then they can still fund projects outside of the traditional definition if they choose to
do so, and therefore the Act may not need to be revised at all.
18
18
Chapter 4: Recommendations for Moving Forward

As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, the Review process utilized two processes to enable
stakeholder engagement a written survey, and a series of interviews. The input was used to
inform the discussion of each Sierra recommendation in the previous chapter, but it was also
used to identify the overarching themes that could be used as a framework for organizing
recommendations. In the 2003 Sierra report, there were four themes: Accountability,
Definition of Capital, Procedure, and Structure. This chapter outlines themes that have been
identified in 2008 to enable implementation of the original recommendations.
OVERARCHING THEMES
Throughout the review process, it was evident that although there were variances between
particular priorities for stakeholders there was a general consensus on the themes and issues
surrounding the 2003 recommendations. The majority of stakeholders interviewed from the
MOHS, HAs and RHDs indicated that the 2003 recommendations covered the key issues at that
time. A number of changes occurred when the new HAs where formed in 2001 and many
individuals that had the knowledge and relationships with the RHDs were gone.
Moving forward to 2008, the mandate for this review was to identify recommendations that
would enable the full implementation of the original Sierra recommendations. As previously
discussed in Chapter 3 there has been movement on many of the previous recommendations.
In conducting this 2008 status review, four key themes emerged that provide renewed focus to
address the outstanding issues that, to date, have limited the ability to fully implement all
Sierra recommendations. The themes identified are:
!
Predictability of Funding Requirements
Roles and Relationships
Process Issues
Implementation Framework
Each of these themes, and 2008 review recommendations related to each, as discussed in the
sections following.
19
19
Predictability of Funding Requirements:

The central issue in many of the recommendations in the 2003 Sierra report was the need for
predictability of funding commitments. This was expressed in many ways, ranging from
recognition that the 40% RHD contribution is voluntary to calls for long range capital plans,
improved definitions of capital and a need for the HAs to be unfettered by the cost sharing
process as they plan and deliver on their mandate.
Two of these issues require further discussion:
!
The need for long range capital plans, and
The need for the RHDs to be able to ensure ongoing affordability of their funding
commitments
All parties agree that long range capital plans are desired and reflect best practice (as defined
by practices in virtually all other industries and sectors). This is more commonly seen in private
industry where, as McKinsey and Associates3 note that two fundamental issues that must be
part of any effective strategic plan are:
!
Providing facilities: Providing the plant, equipment, and other physical facilities required
to carry on the business.
Providing capital: Making sure the business has the money and credit needed for
physical facilities and working capital.
Both of these principles reflect the need for both a long range capital plan and a cash flow
strategy that aligns with that plan, but some people interviewed during the consultation
process question whether the same is possible in a public sector environment. The Review
team submits that, while it may not be the norm to date, it is both possible and essential.
The Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States4 recognized the need for long range capital
planning in the mid90s when it defined the six best practice principles that would guide its
planning processes, which are:
!
Longrange planning horizon: Capital requirements must be examined over a four to

tenyear period to adequately identify and assess capital construction and renovation
needs. The longrange planning process helps decisionmakers to prioritize capital
obligations and assist them in making informed choices about managing debt. It also
facilitates the identification and evaluation of options and minimizes the unnecessary
expenditure of public funds.
Integration of capital budgeting with strategic planning: Through the strategic planning
process, agencies identify their mission and program objectives and assess the needs of
their customers and the environment in which they are operating. These strategic plans
should be the starting point for identifying capital requirements and determining the
Bruce D. Cox, AIA, Methods, Metrics, and Concepts for Building Dynamic Strategic Planning Processes, Newsletter for the Facility
Management Knowledge Community, 2008.
4
Donald Darr, The Benefits of Long-Range Capital Planning The Virginia Experience, Public Budgeting and Finance, Fall 1998.
20
20
gap between current and future needs. During this process, alternatives should be
assessed, including noncapital options.
!
Limitation of debt financing: There needs to be a measure of debt affordability that

identifies the amount of taxsupported debt that may be prudently authorized
consistent with financial goals and capital needs. Rating agencies view control of tax
supported debt as a key factor affecting credit quality.
Quality information including an inventory of assets and needs: Policymakers must have
uptodate information and comprehensive data and information systems to make
effective decisions.
Good communications:
Good internal communication allows all levels of an
organization to be familiar with the agencys mission and strategic goals. Dialogue and
feedback between line and central agencies is important to quickly resolve questions or
problems. A central agency can also serve as a clearinghouse for disseminating stateof
theart techniques.
Monitoring of performance: Agencies must be held accountable for results through

appropriate levels of review. Once initiated, there needs to be a systematic way to
monitor a projects progress and evaluate performance. For example, performance
measures can be used to assess completion targets and cost estimates. The evaluation
of results allows lessons learned to be incorporated into the capital decision making
process.
Looking at just the first two principles, the MOHS and the HAs have started the process for
longer range planning, with some initial attempts to define capital needs over time. While
there have been some challenges with this process, it is clear that it needs to continue and that
the RHDs need to be active participants. This would go along way to addressing the issue of
ongoing affordability as it would predict the overall cost and enable discussion with the RHDs
regarding affordability and financing options. The RHDs already have multiyear financial plans
for revenue from the community tax base, but they are concerned that capital costs can change
because of the current model that relies on oneyear planning cycles. A model grounded in the
above principles would move beyond the oneyear planning horizon and address many of the
underlying concerns.
While all parties recognize the benefits of longer term planning horizons that would provide
more predictability over future funding needs, some suggest that political planning cycles can
impact the ability to commit to long range plans. The Virginia model also contemplates this
issue, acknowledging that the final prioritization rests with the Governor and his cabinet and
ultimately will balance their policy goals and the availability of funds. The process also allows
the Governor to fund projects that are declared to be of an emergency nature. These projects
are managed outside of the normal cyclical planning process and do not affect the capital
funding commitments included in the long range plan.
21
21
To advance the costsharing model and meet the needs of all parties surrounding Predictability
of Funding Requirements, the following recommendations are offered:
R1.
The Provincial Government, through the Ministry of Health Services, is asked to

commit to the development of a long range health infrastructure capital plan no
later than the 2010/2011 fiscal year. The plan should provide for a minimum
planning horizon of three years, with a long term goal of five to tenyear plans.
R2.
The RHDs and HAs are asked to define fixed funding amount that will provide
increased predictability of the funding obligations of the RHDs for the majority of all
capital initiatives including minor equipment, major equipment, facility renovations
and routine capital development projects. This fixed amount should be confirmed
for an initial period of three years and then updated in three year cycles based on
the long range plans established by Government.
R3.
HAs are asked to develop draft capital plans and identify which initiatives it intends
to support using the RHD fixed share. Updates to those plans as well as planned and
actual use of funds should be part of the regular reporting at scheduled meetings.
R4.
The MOHS is asked to work with the HAs and RHDs to update/confirm the definition
of capital. This definition should identify a dollar value for large building projects
that will be considered outside of the fixed funding model contemplated in
Recommendation #2.
R5.
The MOHS and HAs are asked to develop educational materials to define the P3
alternate financing model more clearly to all parties, ensuring that any such material
addresses concerned noted previously in this report.
Above 2008 review recommendations linked to ability to fully implement Sierra
recommendations: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #10
22
22
Roles and Relationships:

One of the major issues surrounding the inability to fully implement Sierras recommendations
for the cost sharing model are grounded in the conflict surrounding roles and relationships that
occurred following the regionalization of the health care system.
Where We Have Come From
Prior to regionalization, RHDs had relationships with individual hospitals (often representing
individual communities) and the RHD had a higher degree of influence over the prioritization of
capital priorities within the District. Much of this influence emanated from the fact that a single
RHD had multiple relationships with individual hospitals and needed to be fully briefed on
hospital plans in order to have an informed discussion on potential priorities.
Following regionalization, the Health Authorities assumed this prioritization role as the
hospitals now were part of a larger whole and multiple RHDs now had to form relationships
with the single HA, a reversal of the prior model. This led to a gap or void for the RHDs who
perceived that they were no longer provided the level of information that they had previously
received, and therefore, were not in the same position to discuss and defend planning decisions
to the local electorate.
At the same time, the HAs were expected to develop capital plans that included more than just
hospitals, and more than just a single community (as represented by that hospital). So a second
shift occurred where the focus of planning was broadened and the potential financial
obligations for RHDs were expanded. In addition, many of the individuals that RHDs had
worked with at hospitals were no longer in the system, so RHDs did not know who to contact to
raise concerns and address questions.
The end result was that traditional relationships, responsibilities and accountability models
(many of which were informal) were eliminated, but there was no clarity provided as to what
would take their place. RHDs seeking the same level of dialogue and influence found
themselves in relationships with new individuals, new organizations and operating under a new
(albeit yet unwritten) set of rules.
Where We Are Now
This history is important because there continues to be some issues related to role clarity
between the parties, varied perceptions of accountability requirements and linkages, and the
need for overall improvements in relationships. RHDs express a desire to be more actively
engaged as partners in processes to identify health care issues and define priorities, while HAs
want to ensure that they are able to fulfill their mandate as defined by the provincial
government. These relationship issues reflect an area that requires attention on an ongoing
basis.
On a positive note, the Review team found that the vast majority of RHDs report that
communications have improved between HAs and RHDs since the 2003 review. These
improvements include regular meetings scheduled between the parties and for discussion of
the HAs capital plan and priorities. Most also now have Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
agreements between RHD and HA to clarify both parties requirements and expectations.
23
23
Although communication and relationships are generally reported to have improved, there are
still some that need to work to improve the understanding of the issues from both HAs and
RHD perspectives of the Health Services requirements for communities. Core to the issue is a
need to confirm the partnership relationship between the HAs and RHDs. The attributes of an
effective partnership, as identified through the consultation process, include:
!
An underlying valuing and respect for the role that each partner plays and how that role
benefits all parties in the relationship;
Timely and transparent dialogue, consultation and information sharing that ensures that
all partners are appropriately involved in the planning process that leads to a decision
affecting all partners;
Alignment of planning processes to meet the needs of all parties;
Harmonized performance monitoring and review regarding resource allocations.
Central to the partnership issue is that RHDs as representatives of local government leaders
feel that they have a strong and legitimate role to play in the areas of citizen engagement. To
fulfill that role, the RHDs need to be better informed surrounding the HAs strategic priorities
and operational challenges, as well as the prioritization processes for local health initiatives.
HAs, by contrast, raised concerns that any process to broaden the dialogue between HAs and
HDs beyond just capital priorities could lead to further conflict or tension as it could lead to the
discussions that drift into operational areas that are clearly the purview of the HA when it
comes to decision making. The key will be to agree on whether or not the role is appropriately
focused and then structure communication mechanisms appropriately.
As the partnership model evolves, it will be important to ensure that all parties understand how
their roles fit within an overall decision making framework. To assist with clarity, the review
team has created the CSI Decision Making Model which is referred to as DRIVE. DRIVE is an
acronym for the five roles that exist within a formal decision making framework. Each is
described in the table below:
24
24
Role in Decision Making
The formal Decisionmaker.

He or she is ultimately
accountable for the decision good or bad and must
have the authority to resolve impasse in the decision
making process as well as during implementation.
The Recommenders. Typically may consult with others,

but they have responsibility to develop the ultimate
proposal and recommendations Someone is typically
assigned responsibility to formulate an initial proposal or
response to a problem or issue that is being examined.
Those with Input typically will play a key role in enabling

an implementation of a recommendation because they
were part of the consultation process These individuals
need to be consulted on the decision, and their advice is
typically sought by a recommender, as well as by the
ultimate decision maker, prior to the process being
finalized.
Those with Veto power must agree with the

recommendation prior to it going forward for a formal
decision. If these individuals do not agree, then the
proposal is revamped until agreement can be reached.
Those chosen to Execute. This stage provides clarity

regarding timing, expected deliverables/outcomes and
consequences for failure to act once a decision is made.
Organizational
Mandate
MOHS
Health Authority
Regional
Hospital District
N/A
Health Authority
In the current capital planning model, the HAs have the R role as they formally recommend
priorities to MOHS. RHDs should have an input role as they are key participants in the dialogue
on issues. No one has a V (veto) and MOHS and the provincial government ultimately have the
D and get to decide. Once decisions are made, the HA carry the E role as they have
responsibility to implement.
To advance the costsharing model and meet the needs of all parties surrounding Roles and
Relationships, the following recommendations are offered:
R6.
The MOHS, RHDs and HAs are asked to clarify principles and mechanisms required to
improve communication and enable a more robust process for joint dialogue on key
issues related to the overall context within which capital planning decisions are
being made.
R7.
HAs and RHDs are asked to continue with the development of processes to ensure
regular meetings are scheduled between representatives of the Boards of the HAs
(e.g. Board Chair) and the RHDs to:
25
25
Enable communication of key strategic and operational initiatives that

are underway within the HA as they relate to capital planning and
development;
! Provide a forum to support a joint dialogue on key issues for both the
HAs and RHDs;
! Offer the RHDs an ability to identify specific questions or concerns they
have regarding health care delivery in their communities; and
! Discuss potential capital priorities.
Both HA and RHD should have the opportunity to influence the agenda for these
meetings and adequate time should be planned to allow for both formal and
informal discussions.
R8.
HAs and RHDs are asked to schedule semiannual meetings between RHD staff and
the appropriate staff from the HA. These should be viewed as working meetings
and could be coscheduled with the formal Board dialogue sessions suggested
above. In this model, the RHD must be willing to accept the HAs authority to
designate the most appropriate person(s) to represent them at these meetings.
R9.
HAs and RHDs are asked to define mechanisms to allow for ad hoc updates outside
of regularly scheduled meetings to ensure timely communication of issues occurs
between staff (and possibly the Boards).
recommendations: #1, #11, #12, #13 and #14
26
26
Process Issues:
Many of the process issues will become less of an issue if the recommendations outlined in the
previous two sections are implemented. Notwithstanding that, there continue to be some
potential challenges:
!
The Sierra Report called for an updated definition of capital. This remains an issue and
likely needs to be addressed.
A number of other process issues that were raised including timing issues and the need
for alignment of planning calendars, communication and project management,
reconciliation of budget versus actual costs and challenges associated with monitoring
projects through implementation.
The P3 model for funding new investments continues to be an issue of particular

concern for RHDs and requires ongoing discussion and clarification.
To advance the costsharing model and meet the needs of all parties surrounding Processes, the
following recommendations are offered:
R10.
The RHDs and HAs are asked to share current templates and tools to be used to
support improved communication, project management and cost updates. The
intent is to create a toolkit to increase consistency of tools used across all HAs and
RHDs.
R11.
The MOHS is asked to update the legislation to reflect a new definition of capital.
recommendations: #10, #11, #13, #14 and #15
27
27
Implementation Framework:
The Sierra report called for the following mechanism to review implementation:
While a threeyear review was suggested, stakeholders noted that there was no formal
implementation framework and no party was given formal accountability and performance
framework to ensure implementation of the recommendations. As many of the
recommendations would have required significant policy and legislative changes, the absence
of this framework was identified by some stakeholders as one of the barriers to implementing
the report.
To advance the costsharing model and meet the needs of all parties surrounding
Implementation, the following recommendations are offered:
R12.
The MOHS is asked to take the lead implementation role, to ensure that a detailed
implementation workplan is developed jointly with UBCM, the HAs and RHDs.
R13.
The UBCM is asked to monitor implementation progress on a semiannual basis and

request explanation of any variances to the workplan.
28
28
Chapter 5: High Level Implementation Plan

To assist UBCM and the MOHS in moving forward, we offer the following advice surrounding
implementation.
Step 1: Receiving the Report
The first step is a critical point where MOHS and UBCM formally receive the findings report.
This action does not imply that MOHS and UBCM agrees with each and every recommendation,
but rather that the organization has accepted the report and is committed to moving forward.
The process starts with MOHS (or UBCM) initiating a communication process to show the
overall commitment to move forward with implementation and be clear about their intents for
how they are going to proceed with the consultants report. In our experience, this
communication should occur within 90 days of the report being formally submitted to UBCM.
Step 2: Issuing a Formal Response
Once the report has been received, the MOHS, HAs and RHDs should be provided a clear
timeline for responding to the content and confirming if they are comfortable with the
recommendations as presented. This process should confirm which recommendations are
accepted without change, accepted with minor modifications or changes suggested, and
rejected because they are either inappropriate or considered no longer relevant. For
recommendations that will proceed to implementation, there should be a prioritization process
and an overall timeline to achieve full implementation.
Step 3: Enabling Critical Success Factors
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) identify specific actions or supports that must be available to
proceed with the implementation. In many cases, the success factors reflect specific areas of
need or investment that the organization must develop. The following outlines suggested CSFs
for this initiative:
" A Unifying Vision and Sense of Purpose. Pursuing change of this magnitude can be
enhanced by taking some time upfront to work with organizational leaders to raise their
level of understanding of the issues, their comfort with their roles and to build
consensus and support for the change strategy. It may also be useful to articulate a
renewed statement showing commitment to addressing the issues. This part of the
process needs to focus on articulating individual roles and responsibilities for each
partner as well as concepts necessary for teamwork.
" Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Strategies. It is critical that the
organization ensure that all stakeholders have a chance to hear the report findings and
develop a shared understanding that:
1. That changes are required;
2. What those changes are; and
29
29
3. That changes will be implemented.

A stakeholder engagement and communication strategy will be pivotal to the successful
rollout of this report and the subsequent implementation of recommendations.
" Leadership to Guide and Support Change. Leadership will be key to the success of the
implementation effort. It should start with the senior leaders at MOHS, RHDs and
Health Authorities, but may also need to include formal government endorsement. Also
need to note that someone needs to take responsibility for implementation our
recommendation is MOHS. UBCM (or alternate) to play monitoring role.
" Supporting Project Management Capacity. Project management support will also be
key. We would recommend the appointment of an internal project manager to lead the
support rollout and ensure that implementation stays on track. The project manager
will have to work closely with RHD and HA leadership, who in turn, will work closely with
staff to effect change and ensure that the report maintains a renewed and revitalized
focus. In our experience use of project management tools to track implementation and
to provide timely executive oversight is extremely helpful.
Step 4: Building a Viable Implementation Plan
Once the report has been received and endorsed and critical success factors have been
identified, MOHS and UBCM must transition to building a viable implementation plan. This
phase, which we typically refer to as Mobilization, is an important planning activity where
required priorities are defined, project schedules which detail timelines and deliverables are
established, and resources are identified and assigned to the project.
Step 5: Implementation and Evaluation
Once the report Mobilization is underway, UBCM will be able to move forward with monitoring
as per defined timelines (e.g. quarterly or semiannually)
Timing Considerations
Based on experience in other projects, we would suggest that Steps 1 through 4 of this
implementation should be able to be completed by September of 2009, but MOHS and UBCM
should be asked to define specific timelines. UBCM should commence its semi annual
monitoring role within six months of development of a formal implementation plan.
30
30
Chapter 6: Other Considerations

As with the Sierra Report, this review found that issues came up in the process that were
outside of the scope of work given to the Review Team. Most of these relate to questions
surrounding the overall appropriateness and applicability of the cost sharing model. People
raised a number of issues related to this including:
!
RHDs do not exist in the Lower Mainland meaning that the population within the
GVRD do not contribute to capital projects for hospitals through a local government
taxing authority. This relates to a decision years ago to have the GVRD provide
funding for capital expenditures for transit rather than Hospitals. At the time it was
believed that the trade off between transit and hospital was fairly equal, however
with the province and other Regional Districts putting more money into transit, the
question has once again been raised as to the fairness of this arrangement.
Variation in taxation levels, amounts paid in real dollars and variation on

percentages of projects funded by RHDs creates a sense of inequity that may need
to be addressed more directly in the long term. Sierra noted that no RHD should be
required to pay more than they had historically, but some people question if
historical amounts were valid or appropriate.
Overall questions of affordability for the RHDs to pay for capital costs requires a
more indepth review, and new targets/processes may be required (based on an
underlying principle of ability to pay).
Issues related to cost sharing capital projects in RHDs with large First Nation
populations are acknowledged as complex and beyond the scope of this report, but
will require some focus in the future.
The emerging role of the Ministry of Finance in the capital planning and
prioritization process has been identified as an issue requiring some clarification.
Finally, some RHDs continue to question whether they should continue to exist and
be expected to fund capital costs in health. Some HAs also question whether RHDs
should exist for this role. (Note: this was identified in the Sierra Report but there is
a general sense that fewer parties question the role now than did in 2003).
31
31
DRAFT RESOLUTION #2
Improvements to Income Assistance Service Delivery
WHEREAS; in recent years the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation
has changed its service delivery model such that in-person, direct services have been
dramatically reduced and income assistance services are now primarily provided
remotely by centralized telephone line and over the internet;
AND WHEREAS; these service delivery changes have introduced significant barriers to
people on or seeking income assistance and made it excessively difficult for many
individuals to receive the support they require.

The Association of Kootenay Boundary Local Government requests that the Union of
BC Municipalities work with the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to
ensure that people requiring help to access income assistance receive such help
appropriate to their needs and abilities (in-person where required) in a timely manner,
and in a way that does not place additional economic burden on that person (e.g.
repeatedly using pay as you go cell phone minutes waiting on hold for excessive
lengths of time, paying for computer/internet usage, travelling long distances to Ministry
offices from surrounding areas due to local office closures, etc.) and further, in a
manner that does not download the responsibility for this assistance to other service
providers without compensation for such additional work.
Welfare Service Delivery Problems at MSDSI
WELFARE SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES AT

THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL INNOVATION
Backgrounder
Individuals receiving income assistance have very little money. Many live in unstable
housing and some are homeless. This means that many do not own a phone, and
many that do own phones use pay as you go plans that run out quickly. Most
income assistance recipients do not own a computer and many are not computer
literate. For those that do have a computer, few can afford internet access.
CHANGES TO MINISTRYS SERVICE DELIVERY
Over the last five years, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation
(Ministry or MSDSI) has made radical changes to the way it delivers its services:
Income assistance services are now delivered primarily through a centralized

phone line and over the internet.
While local Ministry offices still exist, in-person, face to face services have
been dramatically reduced. Fourteen Ministry offices have been closed
completely since 2005, and in September 2014, 11 more offices across the
province (including the Nelson and Trail offices) reduced their hours to only
three hours a day, making it impossible for many in communities in the North
and Interior regions to be able to speak to Ministry staff in person. These
offices regularly have long lineups, and many people in surrounding
communities cannot get to the office during the short window it is open due to
limited bus schedules and ride availability.
Wait times on the centralized phone line are long (averaging almost an hour
as of September 2015), and when callers finally get through the Ministry
places limits on the length of the call.
The initial application for income assistance is confusing, lengthy and must be
done online, with no dedicated Ministry services available to assist applicants
with its completion.
OMBUDSPERSON COMPLAINT
In May 2015, BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre (BCPIAC), a public interest law
office, filed a complaint with the BC Ombudsperson, asking that it review access and
service delivery issues at the Ministry. BCPIAC represented nine non-profit
advocacy and social service agencies from across BC (including The Advocacy
Centre in Nelson) in this systemic complaint to the BC Ombudsperson.
This complaint set out how the current administrative design of income assistance
services creates serious barriers for the most vulnerable people in the province to
access essential funding for their basic needs.
Then Ombudsperson Kim Carter declined to investigate the issues at a systemic
level, and said that they would prefer to continue to devote their resources to
investigating individual complaints. BCPIAC is currently working to assist individuals
in filing individual complaints about service delivery.
HOW MUNICIPALITIES CAN HELP
It is critical that these issues be raised and acknowledged at every possible
opportunity. Many of the people most impacted by the service delivery problems are
those least in a position to complain about themmany fear retaliation against them
by the Ministry if they complain, some have been so disempowered by their
interactions with the Ministry that they do not see service quality as something they
have a right to complaint about, and for many, entering yet another bureaucratic
process (i.e. the complaint process) is not possible when they are trying to secure
shelter and feed their families.
In November 2015 the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government
Service issued the following recommendation after their provincial tour where they
heard from individuals and groups about the barriers in accessing welfare:
Improve access to Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation
services and resources by providing more in-person support to augment
telephone and online service delivery models to ensure that those in need
can gain timely and efficient access.
We need more voices to call for changes to the way services are delivered so that
the most vulnerable are able to access the basic benefits to which they are legally
entitled. Municipalities taking a stand against these service delivery changes that
deny basic access would assist in demonstrating to the provincial government that
current way welfare services are delivered is unacceptable.
BACKGROUND ON WAIT TIMES AND CUTS TO IN-PERSON SERVICE CUTS

i.
WAIT TIMES ON THE CENTRALIZED PHONE LINE
Data from the MSDSI on the wait times on the Automated Telephone Inquiry (ATI)
phone line in response to an FOI request made by BCPIAC indicates that wait times
at the centralized phone line had reached an average of almost one hour in the
summer of 2015.
ii.
OFFICE CLOSURES AND SERVICE HOUR REDUCTIONS
Since 2005, the following 15 MSDSI offices have closed:
610 St. Johns Street in Port Moody (2005)

5021 Kingsway in Burnaby (2006)
33 3rd Avenue in Burns Lake (2006)
1023 Davie Street in Vancouver (2006)
2100 Lableux Road in Nanaimo (2006)
7388 Vedder in Sardis (2007)
504 Cottonwood Avenue in Coquitlam (2009)
7953 Scott Road in Delta (2010)
828 West 8th Avenue in Vancouver (2013) 1

2484 Renfrew St, in Vancouver (2013)
60 Needham St, in Nanaimo (2013)
475 E. Broadway in Vancouver (China Creek) (2014) 2
2280 Kingsway in Vancouver (Killarney) (2014)
10095 Whalley Blvd in Surrey (2014)
Since 2011 the Ministry has also reduced the number of hours clients can get
help from a Ministry staff person in at least 14 offices:
As of May 2011, the Ministry office in Hope went from being open five days a
week to two days a week.
In September 2014, the following 11 Ministry offices in the North and the
Interior reduced office hours to only three hours a day from 1pm to 4pm
Monday to Friday:
o Nelson
o 100 Mile House
o West Kelowna
o Oliver
o Prince Rupert
o Smithers
o Trail
o Grand Forks
o Merritt
o Dawson Creek
o Fort St John
the Kiwassa and Dockside Ministry offices in the Downtown Eastside have
limited their drop-in hours to two hours per day from 9am-10am and 1pm2pm
This office did not technically close but stopped providing face to face services to income assistance and
disability assistance recipients; these recipients were transferred based on postal code to the China Creek,
Mountainview, and Killarney offices. The Killarney and China Creek offices both closed the following year, with
these clients then all being transferred to the Moutainview location.
These clients were transferred to the Mountainview location.
DRAFT RESOLUTION #3
Integration of federal marijuana legislation with regional and local regulation
WHEREAS the Liberal Government of Canada has publicly declared its intention to
legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana with creation of a
federal/provincial/territorial task force with input from experts in public health, substance
abuse and law enforcement to design a new system of marijuana sales and distribution
with appropriate federal and provincial excise taxes applied;
AND WHEREAS the Liberal Government of Canada Standing Policy Committee has
committed to working with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a
coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana, respecting provincial health jurisdiction
and particular regional concerns and practices;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Government of Canada formally recognizes

the importance of partnership with provincial and municipal governments in ending the
prohibition of marijuana in Canada; commits to consultations with provincial and
municipal governments, and adopts a coordinated approach when introducing
regulation of marijuana by providing provincial and municipal governments adequate
time to align and integrate regional and local regulations and practices with new federal
laws when they are enacted.
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Policy Resolution 117: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana ............................................................................ 4
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Questions .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Policy.........................................................................................................................................................9
International Response ........................................................................................................................ 11
Legal ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Public Health ....................................................................................................................................... 121
Logistics ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 17
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 38
Bearing in mind $1 million/ year buys roughly 12 new cops, 14 teachers or public
health nurses, ask yourself: Couldnt ($400 million in law enforcement, court and
corrections) be better spent? The federal Liberal Party obviously thinks so
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, January 18, 2012
Legalize weed, yes, but the devil is in the detailsAlthough polls suggest
Canadians support the idea of legalizing marijuana in general, theyll want to see
a detailed plan before backing the idea unreservedly. Thats where the work
needs to be done now by the drug reform proponents. Gary Mason, Globe and Mail, Feb 2012
Legalization of Marijuana Policy Paper 2013 - Liberal Party of Canada in BC | Page 2 of 38
INTRODUCTION
In January 2012, close to 80% of delegates attending the Liberal Party of Canada's Biennial
Policy convention in Ottawa voted in favour of a policy resolution co-sponsored by the Liberal
Party of Canada - British Columbia (LPC-BC) and the Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) to:
LEGALIZE marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production,
distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal
importation and exportation, and impaired driving
INVEST significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to
promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and
dependency, especially amongst youth
EXTEND amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana
possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto
WORK with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory
approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana
control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns
and practices
Since the resolution was approved a growing number of Canadians and community leaders
have joined the call to end marijuana prohibition in Canada. At the same time, LPC-BCs
Standing Policy Committee has been working with the YLC to prepare this paper.
In addition to capturing progress over the past year, the goal of this paper is to provide some
answers to legitimate questions Canadians have about the impact of implementing this policy.
Some questions are answered in one sentence. Others are more complex and require ongoing
civil dialogue. In total, close to 40 questions have been identified in five categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Policy
International Response
Legal
Public Health
Logistics
From the answers to these questions, a framework for legalization emerges which is
summarized at the conclusion of this paper with suggested next steps.
This paper is not an academic research essay. It is intended to be a practical, plain language
and political document that takes the policy resolution approved by Liberals across Canada in
January 2012 to its next logical step.
After the resolution on marijuana today, there is going to be a group of even happier people
in the Liberal PartyIf you want to be part of a free-thinking, innovative, thoughtful,
pragmatic, hopeful, positive, happy people, come and join the Liberal Party of Canada.
- Interim Liberal Party of Canada Leader Bob Rae, January 15, 2012
POLICY RESOLUTION 117: LEGALIZE AND REGULATE MARIJUANA

Passed January 15 2012 at the Ottawa 2012 Biennial Convention
WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume
marijuana and other cannabis products;
WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on
ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive
congestion in our judicial system;
WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been
recommended by the 1969-72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002
Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special
Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs;
WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians
by generating significant resources for gang-related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling a
reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canadas marijuana
industry;
BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will:
legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and
use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and
impaired driving;
invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote
awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially
amongst youth;
extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana
work with governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana

which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting
provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.
OVERVIEW
A growing number of community and opinion leaders agree the current prohibition of cannabis
is only serving to protect the status quo for organized crime of rich profits, stockpiled weapons
and public executions.
Opinion polls reaffirm the Canadian public is ahead of the current federal government on this
issue. A 2012 poll from Torontos Forum Research just after the resolution to legalize marijuana
was approved at the Liberal Party of Canadas Policy Convention determined:
60% of respondents in every province support reform of marijuana laws - BC is most
supportive (73%)
the largest demographic group that supports reform of current law is 55 to 64
most favour full legalization and taxation over decriminalization of possession (40-26%)
NDP supporters were the most likely to say they were for easing of current laws (71%),
followed by Liberal supporters (64%) and Conservative supporters (59%)
Subsequent polls have suggested support continues to rise for legalization and regulation.
Here is a summary of other reports that have been published since January:
January 16, 2012 - A new spirit of openness and a policy in favour of legalizing and
regulating pot will help breathe life into the Liberal Party in western Canada, party members
said Sunday... Peter ONeil, Vancouver Sun
January 17, 2012 It is an excellent idea, and the resolution ticks all the correct boxes by
way of justifying it: marijuanas widespread and safe use, revenue savings and generation
through taxation, and the fact that it would make Canadians safer from criminal violence. Chris Selly, National Post
Hallelujah! Canadians agree its time to legalize marijuana

- January 18, 2012, Vancouver Sun Headline
January 19, 2012 The Liberals are right to make it a political issueOne (Liberal) goal must
be to better differentiate the party from the ruling Conservatives, and in that respect, a new
policy on cannabis legalization represents a start. (Globe and Mail editorial)
February 15, 2012 Four former BC Attorneys Generals write an open letter saying, The
case demonstrating the failure and harms of marijuana prohibition is airtight. The evidence?
Massive profits for organized crime, wide-spread gang violence, easy access to illegal cannabis
for our youth, reduced community safety, and significant and escalating cost to taxpayers.
February 17, 2012 The Vancouver Sun endorses legalizing marijuana.

March 28, 2012 BCs Provincial Health Officer and Nova Scotias Chief Public Health Officer
say Canada should consider the model used to control and tax the sale of tobacco and alcohol
with marijuana as a way to crack down on organized crime, control availability and influence
cultural norms. (Globe and Mail)
April 27, 2012 Eight BC Mayors write a letter to provincial political leaders calling for an
end to marijuana prohibition...North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto says, We think our
communities will be safer and our children better protected from criminal elements if we
overturn marijuana prohibition. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan says, We put our citizens and
communities at risk by not talking action now. (Province Newspaper)
July 2, 2012 A nationwide survey concludes 66% of Canadians think the law should be
changed so people caught with small amounts of marijuana no longer face criminal penalties.
Support is strongest in Atlantic Canada (72%) followed by BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
Ontario (69%). Support is lowest in Alberta (42%). (Postmedia, Global TV)
August 24, 2012 Due to a lack of resources, Canadian border agents have been told to
stop looking for illegal drugs leaving the country and instead focus on stopping the export of
illicit nuclear material and stolen cars. The directive is unlikely to make US and other countries
very happy. (Postmedia News)
September 27, 2012 Hundreds of BC municipal leaders joined a vote for a policy resolution
at their annual conference to encourage the provincial government to research the regulation
and taxation of marijuana.
December 1, 2012 A shortage of treatment facilities where drug-addicted parents can stay
with their children is having a devastating impact on at-risk youth in BC, advocates say. (Victoria
Times Colonist)
December 5, 2012 Health Canada is preparing to publish new regulations to its medical
marijuana access program that could make doctors the sole gatekeepers of the drug. The
President of the Canadian Medical Association says the proposed changes could see fewer
doctors willing to prescribe it. (Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News)
As Washington State and Colorado voters now have shown, measures for legalizing the recreational use of
pot increasingly appear to make sense. They may even help turn some young people off the drug. How then
to proceed? Well, we obviously have to sort out the various federal/provincial jurisdictional niceties. And we
have to find a workable means of licensing, distributing and selling cannabis. Actually, we in BC already have
one our provincial liquor store system, which for all its faults, appears well-suited to handle
the drug and ensure it isnt sold over the counter to kids.
Jon Ferry, Province Newspaper, November 2012
December 7, 2012 Seattle smokes up legally. First state to allow personal marijuana use
stands to fill coffers. (Vancouver Sun)
The result (of marijuana prohibition) is that thousands of otherwise respectable

people, including lawyers, professors, bus drivers and yes, even journalists, engage in a
recreational habit that risks a criminal record. But its not them Im particularly
concerned with.
Aside from making an ass of the law, the marijuana business one of the most
lucrative in BC enriches all the wrong people, and at no benefit to the community.
The scum who kill in cold blood to protect their turf are the beneficiaries of a
gratuitous shower of riches even Croesus would envy.
Would legalization make marijuana more widely available? Rather the opposite if it
were subject to proper retail controls, as is liquor.
Would it be safer for white-collar professionals indulging at weekends? Certainly.
Would we have at our disposal greater resources for research into addictions, both
alcohol and drug related? Of course. Would legal marijuana put us on a slippery stop
to moral decay? I doubt it.
But I do know it would put a crippling dent in the obscene profits of the drug lords and
their trigger-happy assassins for whom the present law is just dandy, thank you.
- Alan Ferguson, Province Newspaper column, June 3, 2008
QUESTIONS
As support for the policy to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana has increased over the past
year, Canadians have asked legitimate questions about how this policy can be implemented in a
practical and organized way. This happened at the end of alcohol prohibition too.
The goal of this paper is to answer common questions and gather the answers into a draft
policy framework. The questions are identified in five categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Policy
Legal
Public Health
Logistics
The answers are based on survey responses, new laws in Colorado and Washington, existing
Canadian laws and policies, literature and publication reviews.
Everyone believesthat the current approach is not working, but its not clear
what we should do.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 17, 2012
POLICY
COMMONLY ASKED POLICY QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
WHY DO WE WANT TO LEGALIZE IT?

WHY NOT DECRIMINALIZATION INSTEAD OF LEGALIZATION?
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAXATION AND REGULATION?
SHOULD IT BE PART OF A FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT?
WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL AGE TO CONSUME IT?
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CONSUME IN PUBLIC OR AROUND CHILDREN?
SHOULD LEGALIZATION EXTEND TO OTHER DRUGS?
HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT PEOPLE AUTHORIZED TO USE IT FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES?
WHAT WILL BE THE TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT?
HOW WILL WE GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL NOT CONTINUE TO BE A BLACK MARKET?
WHY DO WE WANT TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

While there are many, we focus on five reasons Canada should legalize and regulate marijuana.
1. Fight organized crime.
2. Use the new revenue to support important government services.
3. The current law does more harm than good. In addition to filling bank accounts of
criminals, prohibition delivers:
uncontrolled access for youth and first contact with organized crime
no product safety and labeling standards for millions of consumers
criminal records for thousands of average Canadians
a significant burden on government budgets to enforce and prosecute
4. Millions already consume marijuana in Canada each year.
5. Promotion of evidence-based policy instead of political ideology. The current law is not
achieving its goal to prevent use particularly among youth who enjoy uncontrolled
access now. A growing number of community leaders, researchers, opinion leaders and
voters agree it is time to reconsider prohibition.
WOULD A SYSTEM OF PARTIAL LEGALIZATION LIKE DECRIMINALIZATION

BE OPTIMAL INSTEAD?
No. Decriminalization of small amounts would lead to a system where it is legal to possess but
not supply. Without legalizing production, sale and consumption together, organized crime
will continue to meet the market demand and law enforcement agencies and health care
professionals will remain in limbo.
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAXATION AND REGULATION OF

MARIJUANA? SHOULD LEGALIZATION BE PART OF A
FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT?
While the implementation of a regulated system must include collaboration with provincial
and local governments, the Government of Canada must demonstrate leadership and take
the first step. We recommend this first step to be a legal framework which:
Is led by federal Ministers of Justice and Health
Developed by a special Cabinet Committee on Organized Crime
Reflects feedback from provinces and provides administrative flexibility
Includes a federal/provincial regulatory and revenue-sharing agreement based on
models established for the production, distribution and sale of alcohol and tobacco
Establishes an interim authority to oversee implementation
Is subject to review by a House of Commons Standing Committee
Once the law is approved in Parliament, provincial and local governments would be expected to
respect its provisions as they do now with other controlled substances.
WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL AGE FOR CONSUMPTION?

We recommend the legal age for consumption be the same as alcohol for each province.

No. Police, justice and correction resources should be redirected to support violent crime
investigations and attack other revenue streams of organized crime.
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CONSUME MARIJUANA IN PUBLIC OR

AROUND CHILDREN?
Provincial and municipal governments should have some flexibility within the federal regulatory
framework to place reasonable restrictions on where people can consume and purchase
cannabis as is currently done with alcohol and tobacco use. This would include activities to
protect the health and well-being of children and employees.
Washington State is proposing to prohibit the consumption of marijuana in public places where
alcohol is banned and federal facilities (military bases, national parks, etc). Failure to comply in
Washington is subject to a fine of $100 however police officers are not yet issuing tickets.
WHAT WILL BE THE TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LEGALIZATION?

The economic impact of legalizing marijuana in Canada would be very positive for the
government and taxpayers. The full scale of this benefit is the only question and it has been
the subject of increasing study. Here are some recent examples:
Washington State estimates a fully functioning marijuana market will generate over $1.9
billion over five years based on 360,000 annual consumers.
A November 2012 research paper from Simon Fraser University published in the
International Journal of Drug Policy concluded legalizing marijuana in BC may generate
$2.5 billion in government tax and licensing revenues over five years based on a
domestic provincial market of over 400,000 annual consumers
A 2009 report from the RAND Corporation for the European Commission concluded
global retail expenditures on cannabis ranged from 40-120 billion ($60-180 billion CDN)
based on a global market of over 200 million consumers.
RANDs 2009 report estimates Canadas annual retail cannabis market at .29% of GDP or
2.769 billion ($3 4 billion CDN) based on a market of 3 million annual consumers
A 2004 Fraser Institute study estimated BCs marijuana crops value at 2-4% of the
provinces GDP.
New revenues will be complemented by the ability to reallocate law enforcement, correction,
border and justice resources.
Thousands of Canadians will also find direct and indirect employment. Opportunities include:
agriculture, technology and energy supply
specialty retail stores
transportation, distribution, packaging and manufacturing
inspectors, engineers, quality controllers, licensing officers and health researchers
legal, insurance, financial and accounting services
marketing, communication, tourism and public education
alternative products - non-smokable, cosmetic products, building materials, fabrics
WOULD PEOPLE CONSUMING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES

CONTINUE TO BE IN A SPECIAL CATEGORY?
The regulations exempting medical use of marijuana are only necessary because of the current
law. With the end of prohibition, there will be no need for this legal exemption which has
proven difficult to manage for many patients, doctors, designated growers, municipal
authorities and law enforcement personnel.
In addition to saving tax dollars, replacing the federal medical marijuana program with a new
legal framework may encourage doctors and researchers to more freely explore health impacts,
alternatives to smoking and potential for inclusion of medical use in provincial health insurance
programs.
HOW WILL WE GUARANTEE THAT THERE STILL WONT BE A BLACK

MARKET FOR MARIJUANA?
While ending prohibition will put many criminals out of work, it wont end organized crime.
That said, black market sales of illegal alcohol and tobacco have not become a problem postprohibition.
Ongoing vigilance will be required and the federal government should develop a
comprehensive set of policies to attach organized crime through the Special Cabinet Committee
we have proposed.
However, strategic elements of a legal framework can help prevent a marijuana black market
from re-emerging:
ensure the legal price is lower than the current price and quality is equal or better
ensure packaging reflects consumer demand and product is accessible for adults
establish zero-tolerance on import/export
increase criminal penalties for export, unregulated suppliers and trafficking to minors
reallocate some police and law enforcement resources to border patrol
allow opportunities for Canadians to continue to grow limited amounts of marijuana
for personal use
Background United Nations

Canada is a party to three international conventions that regulate drug control:
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1961 Convention)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 (1971 Convention)
1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (1988 Convention).
Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 1988 UN Convention requires that:
Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary under its domestic law, when
committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961
Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention. (Marijuana is one
such substance)
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO
ENDING MARIJUANA PROHIBITION IN CANADA:
1. ARE WE ALLOWED TO LEGALIZE IT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? IS IT AGAINST
CANADAS TREATY?
2. HOW CAN WE DO THIS WITH THE UNITED STATES SO OPPOSED?
3. HOW WILL WE CONTROL CROSS-BORDER TRAFFICKING?
4. IS THE ILLICIT MARIJUANA TRADE IN CANADA CONNECTED TO VIOLENT CARTELS IN
MEXICO, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA?
ARE WE ALLOWED TO LEGALIZE IT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

IS IT AGAINST CANADAS TREATY OBLIGATIONS?
This question is more common with government than the general public. Here are four answers:
1. Canada is a sovereign country - free to make our own laws through a democratically
elected government in the House of Commons.
2. Other UN member countries have already improved their marijuana laws without
sanction.
3. Canada should lead a movement to amend out-of-date international conventions to
reflect changes in medical evidence and international consumption rates. They have
been used as an excuse for inaction and regressive thinking for too long.
4. Canada has rights to withdraw from these UN conventions, as granted in the articles of
each convention - exercisable by written notification to the UN Secretary-General.
Withdrawal would take effect one year after the date notification was received.
While some may still make the case that legalization is prima facie inconsistent with Canadas
international legal obligations, Canadas Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs identified
a number of factors in 2002 that provide state parties to these conventions with leeway
around strict application. For example:
Review, amendment and withdrawal mechanisms exist in the Conventions. (see answer
four above)
The conventions impose moral obligations on states, not legal ones. There are no
penalties or sanctions for violating the conventions other than a public rebuke by some
of the signatories.
HOW CAN WE LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IF THE UNITED STATES IS SO

OPPOSED TO IT?
This is an important question because the US is Canadas most important international ally and
trading partner. The issue will continue to evolve against prohibition in the US with successful
November 2012 state referendums to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in Colorado and
Washington state. This is reinforced by the subsequent reluctance of the US President to
enforce federal laws in these states.
In this light of these recent developments and estimates more than 25 million Americans
consume marijuana each year (RAND 2009), here are two answers to this question:
1. Public opinion is changing in the United States which does not appear to be as opposed
to the idea of legalization as they may have been in the past.
2. Canada is a sovereign country and our domestic policies regarding crime prevention and
public health should not be dictated from Washington DC. While, federal Liberal
governments have a long history of co-operation with the US on a wide range of social,
economic and global issues, we also are not afraid of respectful disagreement. Recent
examples include made in Canada decisions to:
stay out of the Iraq war
recognize gay marriage
aggressively label tobacco products with health warnings
legalize marijuana for compassionate medical purposes
HOW WILL WE CONTROL INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF CANNABIS? WILL

CANADIANS BE ABLE TO TRAVEL WITH IT?
Out of respect to other countries that may not share Canadas progressive views, we
recommend the government maintain a zero-tolerance of any import or export of marijuana
including countries and states that have decriminalized or ended prohibition.
To enforce this zero-tolerance policy, we recommend dramatically increasing criminal penalties
for the export of marijuana and reallocation of some domestic marijuana enforcement
resources to border patrol and intelligence. The vast majority of these resources would be
allocated at US border crossings.
IS CANADAS MARIJUANA TRADE CONNECTED TO VIOLENT CARTELS IN

Numerous public and public police reports connect Canadas marijuana industry to
international drug and weapons smuggling including violent cartels operating in Mexico,
Central and South America. Here are some recent examples:
April 18, 2012 - Linking the trade in B.C.-grown marijuana to drug violence in Mexico
and the United States, a former U.S. federal prosecutor has added his voice to a growing
chorus in favour of legalizing pot. Gangs affiliated with dangerous drug cartels are
distributing marijuana grown in British Columbia its being exchanged for guns and
cocaine that come up here [to BC] John McKay, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, said
at a press conference in a downtown Vancouver hotel on Wednesday. So the negative
impact of that is more than just proceeds going to Mexican drug cartels, but also whats
coming back to Canada because of this production. (Globe and Mail)
August 29, 2012 A fugitive Hells Angel wanted in connection with an alleged drugtrafficking operation turned himself in at the Burnaby RCMP detachment TuesdayThe
charges follow a 21-month investigation into allegations that marijuana grown in BCs
southeast was being sold in BC and elsewhere to fund the import of cocaine to
CanadaMounties seized $4 million in the weekend raid, including a plastic bag of $100
bills that was spotted with mould. (Vancouver Sun)
September 13, 2012 The number of gang-affiliate federal prisoners has increased
32% to more than 2300 in the past five yearsConsidering what smart people around
the globe have said for half a century, I say legalize pot. We have created a massive
underground global economy that generates billions for organized crime drug profits
are the vital lifeblood of gangs, the primary source of disposable income supporting
their lifestyle and conspicuous consumptionThe recent spate of killings should trigger
a realistic public discussion, one that considers radical solutions and broadens our
approach to dealing with gangs. Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun
November 21, 2012 Police allege marijuana grow-ops in the BC Okanagan area
were used to fund the importation of cocaine into Canada. They say they seized more
than $4 million in drug money during the 20 month operation. (Province Newspaper)
It is time to stop being dumb witnesses to a global deceit.

- Guatemala President Otto Perez, April 13, 2012
Over the past year, leaders of Mexico, Central and South America have called on the United
States to reconsider the war on drugs and join a growing discussion about a new approach
that attacks the profit and business model of organized crime.
LEGAL
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGALIZATION OF
MARIJUANA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
WHAT LAW(S) NEED TO BE CHANGED?

WHAT HAVE THE COURTS SAID ABOUT THE CURRENT LAW?
IS THE CURRENT LAW BEING ENFORCED? HOW MANY RESOURCES ARE ALLOCATED TO
MARIJUANA CONTROL NOW AND WOULD THOSE COSTS BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS LEGALIZED?
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO GROW IT IN THEIR HOMES IF WE LEGALIZE IT?
SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS PLACED ON THE AMOUNT ONE CAN POSSESS AND/OR PURCHASE?
WHAT WILL BE THE PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO OPERATE OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
HOW WILL WE ENFORCE IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS? WILL THEY NEED TO CHANGE?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO CRIMINAL RECORDS OF PEOPLE CHARGED FOR MARIJUANA RELATED
OFFENCES?
WHAT CANADIAN LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED?

A new legal framework must repeal Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
establish new penalties for operating outside of the legal system, create a new taxation and
regulatory structure that reflects discussions with provinces and other stakeholders.

We feel legalization of marijuana should be achieved through the political process not
imposed by courts. It is important for the Liberal Party of Canada to include ending prohibition
in its next platform as a strategy to combat organized crime. This will ensure a mandate for
change is offered to the majority of Canadians who want cannabis regulated and taxed.
Most recent court rulings on the legalization of marijuana have been focused on medical use.
Judgments have regularly favoured more access over less. Conclusions from these decisions
should be considered as a legal framework is developed. These may include:
It is likely possession cant be legalized without provisions for purchase and supply an argument against a half-measure of decriminalizing possession of small amounts
any new policy framework would likely need to allow for alternative uses and
derivatives - including non-smokable and food products
people would likely be free to grow their own for personal use under a legalized
system just as some make their own beer or wine today
the government should not overly limit supply options for consumers
In the absence of a progressive federal government, proponents may continue to initiate
expensive court challenges against prohibition in the future.
IS THE CURRENT LAW BEING ENFORCED? HOW MANY RESOURCES ARE

ALLOCATED TO MARIJUANA CONTROL AND WOULD THEY BE
ELIMINATED OR REDUCED IF MARIJUANA WAS LEGALIZED?
The current law is not being enforced equally across Canada. In some jurisdictions, possession
is prosecuted vigorously. In others, charges are often not filed. Sentencing provisions are
similarly unequal across Canada.
Across Canada 28,183 people were charged with possession of marijuana last
year, or about 81 charges per 100,000 people. According to a 2011 Health Canada
survey, about 9% of Canadians over 15 used marijuana in the past year. That
suggests one in 90 pot users was criminally charged.
- Vancouver Sun, Zoe McKnight, November 2012
Regarding the costs of enforcing the current law, these are often buried in operating budgets of
the border agency, police, correction service and courts making them difficult to calculate.
However, 2005 federal Treasury Board documents published by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network suggest $368 million was spent that year on addressing illicit drugs. Of this, 73% ($271
million) was targeted to enforcement initiatives such as border control ($80 million), RCMP
investigations ($75 million), drug analysis services ($8 million) and federal prosecutions ($90
million).
While a legal framework will not eliminate these costs, we expect they will be reduced
significantly with opportunities to redirect savings to youth programs, border protection,
addressing violent crimes, attacking other profits of organized crime and community
partnerships with provincial and municipal governments.
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO GROW IT IN THEIR HOMES FOR

PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OR PRIVATE SALE?
Yes. While we expect the interest or need for individuals to grow their own to be greatly
reduced post-prohibition, it should not and likely could not - be eliminated. At the same time,
sale of marijuana should be limited to businesses and require proper licensing.
The State of Colorado is planning to impose a limit of six plants per person as part of their
legalization plan scheduled to take effect in January 2013. We believe a maximum number of
plants for personal use should be determined following consultation with provinces, local
governments and other stakeholders.
SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS PLACED ON THE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA

ONE CAN POSSESS AND/OR PURCHASE?
Yes. While we expect there will be little need for Canadian adults to stock-up on product if
quality cannabis is legal and readily available, we are concerned about the potential for
organized crime to easily stockpile legal product for smuggling to other countries.
According to consumption statistics (RAND 2009), monthly marijuana users in Canada consume
an average of 1 gram per day or one ounce (28 grams) each month. Washington State plans
to allow adults to possess only one ounce of marijuana at a time.
We feel Washingtons one ounce limit may create unnecessary, ongoing enforcement
requirements and restrict people growing their own for personal use - where one plant may
yield more than an ounce of product.
In this light we recommend a four ounce (.10 kg) limitation be considered for the amount a
non-licensed vendor or distributor can purchase or possess without obtaining a special permit,
subject to consultation with consumers, distributors, law enforcement and producers. We feel
this is reasonable and akin to purchasing a 40 or 60 oz. bottle of vodka or whisky a couple times
a year instead of buying a small bottle each month.
Other limits would need to be established for cannabis-infused goods, plants for personal use
and marijuana in liquid form. Washington State has established a 16 ounce (.45kg) possession
limit on cannabis-infused goods or up to 72 ounces (2.4kg) for cannabis in liquid form.
WHAT WILL BE THE PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO OPERATE OUTSIDE

THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
As marijuana will be legal, tougher penalties and sentences are justified for those operating
outside the legal system particularly those attempting to sell marijuana to minors and/or
smuggle it into other countries for cash, other drugs and weapons. That said, experience with
the end of alcohol prohibition and tobacco regulation suggests few Canadians will be interested
in the black market as long as the product is more accessible, as good and less expensive.
HOW WILL WE ENFORCE IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS? WILL THEY NEED

TO CHANGE?
Driving impaired as a result of marijuana use is already against the law in all jurisdictions in
Canada. Provincial governments are able to introduce new regulations regarding impaired
driving as they choose this should be reaffirmed in a new federal framework.
However, we support increased penalties for all impaired drivers and providing police with
more accurate tools to detect when motorists are under the influence of marijuana. With
legalization, we recommend the federal government invest revenues to improve detection
technology, training support and research regarding effects of cannabis use and intoxication.
We also recommend monitoring the results of Washington States proposal to establish
presumptive levels of intoxication for THC concentration when a driver is arrested for suspicion
of being under the influence. These have been set at 0.0 for drivers under the age of 21 and 5
nanograms/milliliter of blood for drivers aver 21. Washingtons Licensing Department will be
able to revoke the drivers license of a person who tests above the presumptive level of THC.
What is THC?
THC is Tetrahydrocannabinol - the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. The amount
of THC in marijuana ranges from 1% to 20% and depends on how it was grown, the genetic makeup of the
plant and the amount of flower parts, leaves, stems and seeds. In hash THC amounts vary depending on
the source and how it is prepared. Hash oil generally contains 10% to 20% and considered the most
concentrated form of the drug. Health Canada | November 2012
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO CRIMINAL RECORDS OF CANADIANS CONVICTED

OF MARIJUANA RELATED OFFENCES?
A survey prepared for this paper invited federal Liberals and British Columbians to answer this
question. Of the 1000 respondents, approximately 80% said Canadians with prior convictions
for marijuana possession should have their records cleared. We agree.
Canadians convicted of trafficking marijuana or those who have been charged outside of
Canada should continue to have access to exiting processes associated with pardons, clemency
and the purging of records where minor infractions are involved.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Common questions about the public health implications of marijuana use and the impact
legalization may or may not have:
1.
2.
3.
4.
How many Canadians use it, how much do they use and how many are under 18?
What are the health implications of chronic, moderate and occasional consumption?
What are the public health impacts of legalizing it or not?
Would legalization increase the number of consumers?
HOW MANY CANADIANS CONSUME MARIJUANA ON A REGULAR BASIS?

HOW MUCH DO THEY USE AND HOW MANY ARE UNDER THE AGE OF18?
In its 2011 report, the UN Office for Drugs and Crime estimated 5% of the worlds population
(230 million) used illegal drugs at least once in 2010. Cannabis was identified as the most
widely used illegal drug in the world (estimated at 125 to 200 million people).
A breakdown of 2005 UN figures estimate Canadas consumption rate to be one of the highest
in the world at 17% of the population aged 15 to 64 much higher than Asia (2%), Europe (5%)
and the United States (12%). This translates to 3 million Canadians using marijuana each year.
These figures are similar to a 2009 report from the RAND Corporation for the European
Commission that generated country-level consumption and retail expenditure estimates for
cannabis. Among other things, the RAND report concluded:
global retail expenditures on cannabis range from 40-120 billion ($50-150 billion CDN)
each year
Canadas annual retail cannabis market is best estimated at 2.769 billion ($4 5 billion
CDN) or .29% of GDP
An estimated 2 million Canadians over 15 consume cannabis at least once a month and
3.4 million once a year
Monthly users consume an average of 2.5 cigarettes or 1 gram each day
Annual users in Canada consume an average of 1.25 cigarettes - or .5 grams each day
Average total of marijuana in each Canadian marijuana cigarette is just under .5 grams
A 2010 Health Canada survey indicates that about 366,000 British Columbians use
marijuana, almost exactly the number as in Washington State.
- Province Newspaper, November 21, 2012
HOW MANY CANADIANS CONSUME MARIJUANA HOW MANY ARE

UNDER THE AGE OF18? (CONT.)
Regarding youth consumption, we believe unregulated access to marijuana has contributed
to growing rates of use as opposed to tobacco where regulatory controls have led to
declining youth smoking rates. Here are some recent reports:
A 2007 Health Canada report concluded 8.2% of young Canadians used cannabis on a
daily basis.
In August 2012, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS reported more than half of
adolescent drug users surveyed said they could access marijuana, heroin, cocaine or
crystal meth within 10 minutes.
We recommend the new framework include significant direct investments on youth
engagement initiatives ranging from prevention, awareness and treatment services to
recreation, employment, community and cultural programs.
We also recommend increasing penalties for those convicted of trafficking to minors.
Numbers supplied by the Toronto-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
study show the percentage of the population 50 and older indulging (in marijuana)
has increased 500% since a 1977 report, with them now making up 14% of dope
smokers. When the study looked at the general population, it found puffing pot
was going up in almost every age group. People who admitted smoking cannabis in
their latest study jumped from just under 9% to more than 13%; 30-49 year olds
had doubled their use.
- Postmedia News, David Sherman, November 24, 2012
WHAT ARE THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF CHRONIC, MODERATE AND

OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION?
As marijuana has been legalized for medical use and more accepted in general, an increasing
amount of research is emerging on its effects. Canadian doctors prescribe marijuana to more
than 20,000 people to treat conditions ranging from Alzheimers, premenstrual syndrome,
seizures and migraines to glaucoma, MS, OCD, ADD and HIV/AIDS.
As this paper is not presented as a scientific document, we dont make any conclusions based
on recent research findings on the health impacts of marijuana or lack of them.
Instead we have conducted a scan of media reports over the past year and explored what a few
doctors have to say. All demonstrate conflicting views and the need for more research in a
regulated legal environment instead of the murky edges of the black market.
Here is a sample of some reports that have appeared in various media over the past couple
years about cancer and cannabis use:
2012 US HMO Study of 61,000 insured patients showed no increased risk of lung,
colorectal, melanoma, or breast cancers in current or former cannabis smokers versus
those who have never smoked or experimenters when controlled for tobacco use,
alcohol intake and socioeconomic status.
2012 report from the British Lung Foundation warned smoking marijuana is hazardous
to the lungs and can also cause tuberculosis and Legionnaires disease. The study
showed public awareness of the health consequences was low with almost one-third of
the British population believing it is not harmful.
2011 University of Colorado Cancer Centre Study concluded that there is little direct
evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are carcinogenic.
A 2007 study by Harvard University researchers found that THC in marijuana cut tumor
growth in half in common lung cancer tumours and significantly reduced the cancers
ability to spread.
2005 University of California study concluded that smoking marijuana - even regularly
and heavily - does not lead to lung cancer.

OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION? (CONT.)
Addiction Impact
The Lancet has compared the harm of 20 drugs using a 0-3 scale to measure addiction. The
results:
Heroin 3.00
Cocaine 2.37
Tobacco 2.23
Barbiturates 2.01
Alcohol - 1.93
Benzodiazepines - 1.83
Amphetamine 1.67
Cannabis 1.51
LSD 1.23
Ecstasy 1.13
The University of Victoria Centre for Addiction found alcohol causes more than
twice as many deaths as all major illicit drugs combined, and tobacco causes on
average five times more deaths than alcohol.
Globe and Mail, November 4, 2008
IQ Impact
In August 2012, Reuters reported on one of the worlds largest and longest running
marijuana research studies that concluded people who wait until they are adults to take
up cannabis do not show any significant mental declines in their memory and
intelligence. However, the unprecedented study concluded that teenagers who become
hooked on cannabis before they reach 18 may be causing lasting damage.
A recent report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences about a long-term study of more than 1000 pot-using teens
in New Zealand said that those who continued smoking into their
30s suffered significant cognitive deficits related to memory,
reasoning and ability to process information.
- Globe and Mail, November 23, 2012
ASK THE DOCTOR

We decided to get a rural doctors opinion on the health impacts of marijuana use. Here is what Port
Albernis Dr. Michael I. McGuire told us:
In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have worked to license THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) for
medical purposes, in particular Nabilone (an oral medication used for nausea from cancer chemotherapy and
as an appetite stimulant in the cancer setting) and Sativex (an oral spray licensed for treating neuropathic
pain in multiple sclerosis). In the extensive testing required for licensing by Health Canada, virtually no serious
side effects were encountered.
There is addiction potential with cannabis, in fact some authorities estimate as many as 10% of regular users
will develop an addiction syndrome and suffer personal, social and occupational harm as a consequence. To
keep a proper perspective, the frequency and severity of cannabis addiction is on the low end of the scale
compared to alcohol and tobacco. In addition, the withdrawal syndrome resulting from sudden cessation is
relatively mild, consisting of drug craving and irritability lasting 3-7 days.
There is an observed statistical correlation between cannabis and the onset of schizophrenia with psychotic
symptoms. However, there is no evidence that there is a causal relationship between cannabis and
schizophrenia. Over the past 50 years, cannabis use in North America has increased several-fold, whereas
schizophrenia rates have remained constant.
Studies have not demonstrated a link between lung cancer and cancers of the neck and throat despite
researchers expectation to the contrary. Cannabis has not been shown to cause chronic lung disease,
although it does cause worsening of symptoms in those already suffering from cigarette induced chronic
obstructive lung disease.
A Canadian performed study reported in the CMAJ (Dr. Peter Fried 2002) showed that current heavy cannabis
smokers demonstrated a 4% drop in measured IQ compared to pre-adolescent testing. Light smokers showed
no change, and previous heavy smokers similarly showed no change. Conclusion: you are dumber while you
are stoned but there does not seem to be any lasting effects on intelligence.
DR. MELDON KAHAN, MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF THE SUBSTANCE USE SERVICE AT WOMENS
COLLEGE HOSPITAL IN TORONTO SAYS, (BUT) THERES NO ROLE, OR HARDLY ANY ROLE FOR
SMOKED CANNABIS IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PAIN. THERE ARE SAFER ALTERNATIVES
SUCH AS CANNABIS IN PILL FORM OR INHALERS. THERE ARE TOXINS IN CANNABIS SMOKE THAT
ARE CARCINOGEN AND ACCELERATE HEART DISEASE. SMOKED CANNABIS IS ADDICTING, UNSAFE
DURING PREGNANCY AND ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN TERMS OF
TRIGGERING PSYCHOSIS, DEPRESSION AND MOOD DISORDERS. - GLOBE AND MAIL, NOVEMBER 2012
WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

AND/OR NOT DOING IT?
We conclude legalizing marijuana and regulating its sale, distribution, promotion and price
will have a positive impact on public health and safety by:
Making it easier to prohibit youth access as has been the case for tobacco.
Ensuring marijuana is grown in a controlled and regulated setting with strict labeling
provisions to better protect the health of consumers and producers.
Delivering billions of dollars in new revenue that government can reinvest in public
health care including mental illness, treatment, education and awareness initiatives.
Encouraging the private sector and academic organizations to expand research into
health impacts.
Reducing profits for organized crime which results in safer communities and less
opportunity for young people to join gangs.
Forcing fewer Canadians to live with stress and stigma associated with having a criminal
record for doing something 3 million other Canadians do each year.
Increasing availability of marijuana for people who use it for medical reasons or already
have prescriptions for a doctor.
Increasing availability of police resources to control violent crime and other revenue
streams of organized crime.
Reducing disincentives for people to reveal personal use will lead to earlier treatment as
needed.
Creating a responsible and accountable industry that becomes a co-regulator and
complies with improving regulations.
In contrast, maintaining the current prohibition will protect the status quo for organized
crime, guarantee ongoing and uncontrolled access to marijuana for youth and continue to
create more harm than good.
By moving from a violent, unregulated market whose motive is profit to a strictly

regulated market whose goals are public health
we can actually reduce rates of use.
Dr. Evan Wood, Simon Fraser University researcher, Vancouver Sun, November 21, 2013
WOULD A LEGALIZED SYSTEM OF MARIJUANA REDUCE OR INCREASE

THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS?
There are already a significant number of
Canadians consuming cannabis. Studies
identified in this paper estimate more than 3
million Canadians use marijuana each year
and 2 million do it every month. Children and
youth under 18 are accessing marijuana easily
with the current prohibition.
Students who tried cigarettes in 1998: 56%.

McReary Centre Society, April 15, 2009
Some countries that have introduced decriminalization policies have seen drug use and petty
crime rates decline. Since Portugal abolished criminal penalties for possession in 2001, teenage
drug use has declined while referrals to addiction treatment have doubled. The rate of cannabis
use in the Netherlands is 5% compared to 12% in the United States.
There is little evidence to suggest that consumption rates will rise dramatically if marijuana is
legalized particularly since cannabis is not as addictive as most drugs.
In Canada, some doctors and researchers have said a strictly regulated legal marijuana market
has the potential to meaningfully reduce rates of marijuana use, in the same way that
regulatory tools have dramatically cut rates of tobacco use.
We recommend that a new federal framework include particular emphasis on restricting access
for youth, promoting prevention partnerships with local school districts to educate students
and teachers and tough penalties for anyone convicted of selling to minors. This will be
particularly important since we expect the price of legal marijuana to be lower than it is now.
But what about the innocent children who will be exposed to these drugs if they
become freely available throughout society? The answer is nothing that doesnt
happen to them now. There is no city and few rural areas in the developed world
where you cannot buy any illegal drug known to man within half an hour, for an
amount of money that can be raised by any enterprising 14-year old. Indeed, the
supply of really nasty drugs would probably diminish if prohibition ended because they
are mainly a response to the level of risk the dealers must face.
Gwynne Dyer, January 14, 2007
LOGISTICS
COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA:
1. WILL A LEGAL SYSTEM RESEMBLE THE CURRENT WAY WE BUY AND SELL ALCOHOL AND
TOBACCO?
2. WHICH FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES WOULD BE INVOLVED?
3. HOW WILL LEGALIZATION IMPACT CURRENT CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS?
4. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? WHERE WILL PEOPLE PURCHASE IT AND HOW WILL IT BE
PACKAGED?
5. HOW WILL IT BE TAXED? HOW WILL THE REVENUE BE REALLOCATED?
6. WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCERS AND
DISTRIBUTERS?
7. HOW MUCH WOULD CANADIAN PRODUCERS NEED TO GROW?
8. WOULD WE LIMIT THE MARKET TO CANADIAN COMPANIES AND DOMESTIC SUPPLIERS?
9. WHO WILL GROW IT?
10. WILL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS BE ABLE TO PUT COMMERCIAL PROTECTIONS ON
CERTAIN STRAINS, AND BRANDS? WHAT WILL BE THE POTENCY?
WILL A LEGAL SYSTEM OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, DISTRIBUTION

AND SALES RESEMBLE ALCOHOL, TOBACCO OR NEITHER? ARE THERE
OTHER MODELS TO CONSIDER?
Since marijuana is an intoxicant, we recommend the federal/provincial system of alcohol
production, distribution and sale provides the best model for Canadas legal marijuana
framework. This approach would include:
consultation with provincial and municipal governments
elements of tobacco control policy particularly as it relates to packaging, labeling
youth strategy and restrictions on promotion, point of sale and marketing
consultation with retailers, producers and consumers
elements of other national regulatory regimes such as natural health products, medical
marijuana, fisheries, agriculture and hemp cultivation
WHICH FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE INVOLVED

IN THE REGULATION, INSPECTION AND MONITORING OF PRODUCTION,
DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SALES?
We recommend federal Ministers of Justice and Health be responsible for leading a policy
that would be developed with the support of a Special Cabinet Committee on Organized
Crime. The Committee would include Ministers for other federal departments with an
interest in the policy:
Solicitor General/RCMP
Ministry of Agriculture
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs
Canada Revenue Agency
Industry Canada
Human Resources Development
Privy Council Office/Intergovernmental Affairs
These federal agencies will be required to work with provincial counterparts and include an
emphasis on municipal affairs. We recommend this work be supported by an interim project
management authority and refer items to relevant House of Commons Committees.
Washington States proposal to transition from prohibition to taxation provides a preview of
the some administrative requirements agencies may need to consider in Canada. They
estimate a five-year cost of $65 million to fully implement a licensing, regulatory and taxation
plan for a market of 360,000 consumers. Supported by a Dedicated Marijuana Fund, these
operating requirements include:
Liquor Control Board (LCB) for rulemaking, licensure and enforcement - $13.6 million
Departments of Social and Health Services for implementation services - $10 million
Washington State Patrol for additional training on marijuana impairment - $2 million
Department of Licensing to revoke licenses for driving under the influence - $425,000
Office of the Attorney General for legal services to LCB - $318,000
Washington State Patrol Toxicology Laboratory for blood testing cases - $125,000
Offices of the Attorney General and Administrative Hearings for appeals - $125,000
Department of Revenue to administer tax collection from license holders - $90,000
Washington State Patrol for background checks for LCB license applicants - $28,000
Department of Agriculture to develop testing laboratory accreditation standards $26,000
Administrative Office of the Courts for information technology changes to the Judicial
Information System - $3,000
Washington State is proposing a one-year timeline to fully implement their system.
HOW WILL LEGALIZATION IMPACT CURRENT CONSUMERS?

We believe marijuana legalization will have a positive impact on the 3 million-plus annual
adult consumers in Canada. Among other things they will experience:
no more contact with illegal drug dealers and organized crime
access to safer and labeled product
reliable and convenient access
lower prices
increased access to treatment as needed
public benefits associated with reallocation of new government revenues
Non-adult marijuana users will experience significantly reduced access to marijuana and
more exposure to more education, awareness and prevention programs.
HOW MUCH WILL LEGAL MARIJUANA COST, WHERE WILL PEOPLE BE

ABLE TO PURCHASE IT AND HOW WILL IT BE PACKAGED?
COST
To be successful and prevent organized crime from maintaining a black market, the price of
legal marijuana must be lower than it is now. At the same time, the products quality must be
at least as good if not better.
In Canada, pricing legal marijuana should consider:
the black market cost of marijuana differs from one region to another
bulk purchase is encouraged in the black market - the more you buy, the cheaper it is
consumers commonly purchase either one gram, seven grams (1/4 ounce), 14 grams
(1/2 ounce) or 28 grams (one ounce) at a time
very few consumers purchase more than one or two ounces (28-56 grams) at a time
legal growers, distributors and retailers will still need to make a profit in a legal system
The 2009 RAND Corporation Report for the European Commission measured the street price of
cannabis around the world. They concluded the average price in Canada per bulk gram was
$6.50. The federal government initially set their price of medical marijuana in Canada at $5 per
single unit gram but with new rules it is expected to increase to at least $8 per single unit gram.
Meanwhile, Washington State expects their average retail price under their legalized system
will be $12 per gram. They have based this price on medical marijuana dispensaries and do not
assume any increased consumption or competition will reduce prices. Washingtons estimate
assumes a $3 per gram producer price and a $6 per gram processor price.

ABLE TO PURCHASE IT AND HOW WILL IT BE PACKAGED? (CONT.)
COST
(CONT.)
Based on these factors, we recommend the price of legal marijuana be lower than what
Washington State is proposing and at least 30-35% lower than the current black market price.
We think this is achievable because marijuana is relatively easy to produce and process. One of
the most significant costs of production now is the risk of being caught by authorities or being
robbed by a violent criminal.
We also recommend a new legal framework allow provinces to adopt pricing variations which
could facilitate the sale and marketing of premium brands as is the case with alcohol today.
Subject to discussions with provincial authorities, consumers, potential producers and
distributors, here is a basic proposed price list for legal marijuana in Canada compared to the
current black market rates (all taxes included):
ILLEGAL
LEGAL
ALL PROCEEDS TO ORGANIZED CRIME
1 gram - $10-$15
7 grams (quarter ounce) - $65-$80
14 grams (half ounce) - $120-$150
28 grams (ounce) - $220-$260
ALL PROCEEDS TO TAXPAYERS
1 gram - $6-$10
28 grams (ounce) - $140-$170
PACKAGING
Product packaging will be determined almost exclusively by market research and demand. The
vast majority of black market marijuana is sold in dried plant form in bag pouches.
Other than established labeling and product safety requirements, we recommend the new
framework allow consumers to have access to a variety of packaging options, which could
include rolled cigarettes, bag pouches, plastic jars/bottles, edible products and teas.

POINT OF PURCHASE
To many Canadians, point of purchase will be the most visible element of a new legal framework.
For those who chose not to grow their own for personal use, we recommend legal marijuana be
sold to the public through specialty private stores and/or anywhere regulated liquor sales take
place. Limiting point of purchase to these locations will help ensure minors cannot come in
contact with the product.
We do not recommend allowing marijuana to be sold at convenience stores and gas stations as
is the case with tobacco, however provincial and municipal governments will have flexibility to
place reasonable restrictions on where people can consume and purchase cannabis as is
currently done with alcohol and tobacco use. A license to sell would need to be obtained.
This approach reflects Washingtons States plan to require purchase through a Liquor Control
Board (LCB) licensee. Their plan makes no assumptions that a portion of users will purchase
from the illegal market or from medical marijuana retailers. They also make no assumptions
about consumer migration from out of state or the consumption of marijuana-infused products.
Washingtons proposal includes a $250 application fee and a $1,000 issuance/renewal fee for
each licensee. All fees will be deposited into the states Dedicated Marijuana Fund. Some
recovery fees will also be applied to licensees for activities related to enforcement of quality
control measures such as product sampling, testing, labeling and inspection.
To determine the number of retail outlets/licenses, Washington State plans to allow LCB to
caps retail licenses by county, consider population, security issues and discouraging purchases
from illegal markets. They expect over 320 retail outlets will serve their domestic annual
market of 360,000 consumers or over 1100 per location.
At the same rate, Canadian businesses and non-profit organizations would need to staff over
2,700 retail locations to serve Canadas three million annual consumers creating significant
direct and indirect employment opportunities.
Liquor store locations are usually discreet and not near schools and dont have the
product in window displays and have age-restriction protocols in place. It would be
the simplest business model that currently exists to use, so I would recommend it and
then gain consumer feedback over three years and see what changes the consumer
would like, balanced with any public safety concerns.
Marc Emery, Province Newspaper, November 9, 2012
HOW WILL MARIJUANA BE TAXED, HOW WILL THIS REVENUE BE SHARED

BETWEEN VARIOUS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND HOW WILL IT BE
REALLOCATED?
When considering the taxation rate on legal marijuana, it is worth noting that in some regions
of Canada, as much of 45% of the total cost of a package or carton of cigarettes is tax for the
government.
Washington State is projecting annual revenue of over $565 million by 2015 based on 360,000
annual consumers and excise taxes of 25% on the selling price on each wholesale and retail sale
of marijuana from a licensed producer, processor or retailer. State business and occupation
taxes will also apply to these activities.
Based on Washington States projections (363,000 consumers = $565 million annual revenue)
and in light of similar consumption and price trends in Canada, we conclude annual government
revenue in Canada from legalized marijuana based on 3 million annual consumers would likely
exceed $4 billion/year.
We recommend that 30-35% as the preferred tax rate of legalized marijuana in Canada. This
would include HST, GST and PST wherever relevant and some flexibility for provinces to
adjust rates.
In addition to the final tax rate, we also recommend local and provincial governments adopt a
cost recovery approach to the collection of business, licensing, inspection and workplace safety
fees and services.
We recommend the majority of new revenue from legalization be reinvested to strengthen
Canadas public health care system in partnership with provincial governments. This should
include a special emphasis on mental illness, health promotion, addiction treatment and
community youth partnerships.
As an example, Washington State has identified funding priorities for some of their new
revenue. These include (figures are annual):
Health Care - $135 million
General Revenue - $45.7 million
Initiatives to prevent and reduce substance abuse - $36.6 million
Marijuana education and public health program - $24.4 million
University of Washington and Washington State University for research on effects of
marijuana use and development of web-based public education materials - $2.5 million
WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE

PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTERS?
In cooperation with provincial governments, we recommend the new framework include
comprehensive provisions to ensure quality control based on established standards for tobacco,
alcohol and hemp production and compliance with municipal by-laws and business licensing
rules.
In addition to site safety requirements and inspection powers for relevant federal agencies,
these guidelines should allow for various levels of THC, other cannabinoid content and cannabis
strains.
Washington States prohibition transition plan acknowledged a lack of sufficient data to
estimate the number of marijuana producers and marijuana processers they expect to apply for
a license. However, for 363,000 annual consumers they expect 100 marijuana producers and
55 processers. They also assume 50% of marijuana is produced and processed by the same
seller - with the rest produced and sold to a processor.
HOW MUCH MARIJUANA WOULD CANADIAN PRODUCERS NEED TO

GROW?
Producers will grow as much marijuana as needed to meet public demand recognizing that
cannabis is a storable product that will maintain its quality over extended periods of time.
The 2009 RAND Corporation Report for the European Commission calculated the amount of
marijuana consumed in countries around the world. The report concluded that Canadas 3
million annual cannabis consumers use 410 metric tonnes of marijuana or 410 million grams.
Washington State measured frequency of consumption using the pattern contained in the UN
Office on Drug and Crime. The frequency ranged from a low of 18% using once a year to 3%
consuming daily. Applying this pattern and assuming 2 grams of marijuana per use, they
estimate 85 million grams are consumed annually per year to serve 360,000 annual consumers.
The same formula applied to Canadas domestic market of 3 million annual consumers would
require the production of at least 800 million grams per year or 800 metric tonnes.
WOULD WE LIMIT THE MARKET TO CANADIAN COMPANIES AND

DOMESTIC SUPPLIERS?
Based on our recommendation to apply a zero-tolerance to import/export of marijuana, we
recommend that the new Canadian legal framework limit market access to domestic suppliers.
WHO IS GOING TO GROW IT?

In addition to allowing individual Canadians to grow a limited number of marijuana plants for
personal use, we expect Canadas private sector and local non-profit societies will likely be the
main producers, distributors and retailers of marijuana products.
We recommend that before final decisions are made about the structure of this new industry,
the federal government consult the sector and other interested parties as the new framework
is constructed. These discussions should focus on the roles of each level of government,
identifying consumer demands and the scope of a new regulatory framework. Among other
things, we recommend these discussions include the following policy objectives:
government should regulate but not have any direct ownership in any corporation that
produces marijuana
the market should be open to a large range of Canadian businesses from very small
farms to medium size and large-scale operations
discretion regarding the purchasing of marijuana rest primarily with entities that have
been licensed by provinces to sell it
flexibility for packaging options
establishment and enforcement of quality control and product safety standards by
relevant federal health and agriculture agencies
price controls to curtail black market
WILL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS PLACE COMMERCIAL PROTECTIONS

ON STRAINS AND BRANDS? WHAT WILL BE THE POTENCY?
The new framework will respect Canadas current laws and processes regarding patent and
trademark protection. However, we recommend this issue be explored more thoroughly to
consider which protections currently exist and new discoveries associated with a decade of
legal medical marijuana production. These discussions may also consider current models
applied in the agriculture sector regarding particular strains of products.
With regard to THC levels, as noted earlier in the paper, the new framework must ensure legal
marijuana is at least the same quality as to what is found on the street today if not better.
According to the RCMP, Health Canada found an average THC level of 4.8% in marijuana sold on
the street in 1988. The average level was 11.1% in 2008.
We recommend the new framework allow for variance in THC rates and be subject to
consultation with various levels of government and potential sector partners. Marketing of
various premium brands should be allowed with the understanding that growing conditions
and THC level must be included on the product label. This can be based on current alcohol
content requirements for beer, wine and spirits.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A growing number of Canadians and community leaders have joined the call to end
marijuana prohibition in Canada. However, there are legitimate questions about how
legalization would work and what the public impact will be.
2. The five best reasons to end the current prohibition are:
Fight organized crime.
Significant new revenue will support important government services.
The current law does more harm than good.
Commitment to evidence-based policy instead of political ideology.
Millions are using cannabis now.
3. Decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana is a compromise that will please no
one. It would result in a system where it is legal to possess but not to sell or purchase.
Law enforcement agencies would remain in limbo.
4. Changing opinions in the Unites States are weakening a long-standing obstacle to ending
the prohibition of cannabis in Canada.
5. While ending prohibition will require partnership with provincial and municipal
governments, the federal government must take the first step by introducing
legislation in the House of Commons that would be:
led by federal Ministers of Justice and Health and a special Cabinet Committee
on Organized Crime
responsive to feedback from provinces and provide administrative flexibility
overseen by an interim authority to implement and consult with stakeholders
subject to review by House of Commons Standing Committee
6. Ending prohibition will have a positive impact of the Canadian economy. In addition to
generating an estimated $4 billion each year in new government revenue, there will be
thousands of new direct and indirect employment opportunities.

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT.)
7. Ending prohibition will have a positive impact on public health and safety in Canada
by:
Regulating the sale, distribution, promotion and price of marijuana, making it
easier for government to prohibit youth access
Ensuring marijuana is grown in controlled and regulated settings with strict
labeling provisions to better protect the health of consumers and producers
Delivering billions in new government revenue which can be reinvested in public
health care including mental illness, treatment, education and awareness
Expanding private sector and academic research into health impacts
Decreasing profit for organized crime, creating safer streets and communities
and less opportunity for young people to join gangs
Increasing availability of police resources to fight violent crime and other
revenue streams of organized crime
8. The new federal legal framework should include the following elements:
The minimum age of consumption should be same as alcohol for each province.
A revenue-sharing template with provinces.
Significant investments for youth health promotion initiatives.
Provisions for provincial and municipal governments to place reasonable
restrictions on where people can consume and purchase cannabis.
Comprehensive packaging, labeling, promotion, point of sale, price, quality and
marketing regulations
Provisions that allow individual Canadians to grow limited number of marijuana
plants for personal use.
Establish zero-tolerance and increase criminal penalties for import/export,
unregulated suppliers and trafficking to minors.
Reallocate police and law enforcement resources.
Tougher penalties for impaired driving
Limitation on the amount of marijuana a non-licensed vendor or distributor can
purchase or possess without obtaining a special permit.
Limit point of purchase to specialty stores and regulated liquor stores.
Enable open marketplace for wide range of Canadian businesses
Flexibility for variety of packaging options.
Process to clear records for Canadians with prior convictions for marijuana
possession.
NEXT STEPS
LPC-BC and YLC should distribute this policy paper to:
YLC and LPC-BC members and post on-line for public comment.
Liberal Party of Canada provincial associations across the country.
Federal Liberal Caucus members and invite their response.
Candidates seeking the leadership of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada with a
recommendation to:
include the policy resolution to legalize marijuana that was approved by close
80% of delegates at the January 2012 Biennial Policy Conference in the next
election platform
consider paper as a foundation for the establishment of new policy framework
to facilitate the end of marijuana prohibition in Canada and proactively respond
to questions Canadians are rightfully asking about the proposal
DRAFT RESOLUTION #4
Revenue sharing from sale and distribution of legalized marijuana
WHEREAS the Liberal Government of Canada has publicly declared its intention to
legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana with creation of a new system of
marijuana sales and distribution with appropriate federal and provincial excise taxes
applied;
AND WHEREAS the new legal framework will not completely eliminate the costs
associated with enforcement initiatives related to drugs in Canada, it is expected they
will be significantly reduced, providing the federal government opportunities to redirect
savings and invest in youth engagement and prevention programs and initiatives that
include community partnerships with provincial and municipal governments;

The Union of BC Municipalities petition the Government of Canada to share a portion of
revenues realized from the legalization and regulation of marijuana together with a
share of savings realized from reduced enforcement costs with provincial and municipal
governments given the marked impact that marijuana sales and distribution will have
upon Canadian communities and the need for direct investments to youth engagement
initiatives not limited to recreation, employment, community and cultural programs.
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Policy Resolution 117: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana ............................................................................ 4
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Questions .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Policy.........................................................................................................................................................9
International Response ........................................................................................................................ 11
Legal ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Public Health ....................................................................................................................................... 121
Logistics ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 17
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 38
Bearing in mind $1 million/ year buys roughly 12 new cops, 14 teachers or public
health nurses, ask yourself: Couldnt ($400 million in law enforcement, court and
corrections) be better spent? The federal Liberal Party obviously thinks so
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, January 18, 2012
Legalize weed, yes, but the devil is in the detailsAlthough polls suggest
Canadians support the idea of legalizing marijuana in general, theyll want to see
a detailed plan before backing the idea unreservedly. Thats where the work
needs to be done now by the drug reform proponents. Gary Mason, Globe and Mail, Feb 2012
INTRODUCTION
In January 2012, close to 80% of delegates attending the Liberal Party of Canada's Biennial
Policy convention in Ottawa voted in favour of a policy resolution co-sponsored by the Liberal
Party of Canada - British Columbia (LPC-BC) and the Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) to:
LEGALIZE marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production,
distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal
importation and exportation, and impaired driving
INVEST significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to
promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and
dependency, especially amongst youth
EXTEND amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana
WORK with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory
approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana
control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns
and practices
Since the resolution was approved a growing number of Canadians and community leaders
have joined the call to end marijuana prohibition in Canada. At the same time, LPC-BCs
Standing Policy Committee has been working with the YLC to prepare this paper.
In addition to capturing progress over the past year, the goal of this paper is to provide some
answers to legitimate questions Canadians have about the impact of implementing this policy.
Some questions are answered in one sentence. Others are more complex and require ongoing
civil dialogue. In total, close to 40 questions have been identified in five categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Policy
Legal
Public Health
Logistics
From the answers to these questions, a framework for legalization emerges which is
summarized at the conclusion of this paper with suggested next steps.
This paper is not an academic research essay. It is intended to be a practical, plain language
and political document that takes the policy resolution approved by Liberals across Canada in
January 2012 to its next logical step.
After the resolution on marijuana today, there is going to be a group of even happier people
in the Liberal PartyIf you want to be part of a free-thinking, innovative, thoughtful,
pragmatic, hopeful, positive, happy people, come and join the Liberal Party of Canada.
- Interim Liberal Party of Canada Leader Bob Rae, January 15, 2012
POLICY RESOLUTION 117: LEGALIZE AND REGULATE MARIJUANA

Passed January 15 2012 at the Ottawa 2012 Biennial Convention
WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume
marijuana and other cannabis products;
WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on
ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive
congestion in our judicial system;
WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been
recommended by the 1969-72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002
Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special
Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs;
WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians
by generating significant resources for gang-related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling a
reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canadas marijuana
industry;
BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will:
legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and
use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and
impaired driving;
invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote
awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially
amongst youth;
extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana
work with governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana

which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting
provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.
OVERVIEW
A growing number of community and opinion leaders agree the current prohibition of cannabis
is only serving to protect the status quo for organized crime of rich profits, stockpiled weapons
and public executions.
Opinion polls reaffirm the Canadian public is ahead of the current federal government on this
issue. A 2012 poll from Torontos Forum Research just after the resolution to legalize marijuana
was approved at the Liberal Party of Canadas Policy Convention determined:
60% of respondents in every province support reform of marijuana laws - BC is most
supportive (73%)
the largest demographic group that supports reform of current law is 55 to 64
most favour full legalization and taxation over decriminalization of possession (40-26%)
NDP supporters were the most likely to say they were for easing of current laws (71%),
followed by Liberal supporters (64%) and Conservative supporters (59%)
Subsequent polls have suggested support continues to rise for legalization and regulation.
Here is a summary of other reports that have been published since January:
January 16, 2012 - A new spirit of openness and a policy in favour of legalizing and
regulating pot will help breathe life into the Liberal Party in western Canada, party members
said Sunday... Peter ONeil, Vancouver Sun
January 17, 2012 It is an excellent idea, and the resolution ticks all the correct boxes by
way of justifying it: marijuanas widespread and safe use, revenue savings and generation
through taxation, and the fact that it would make Canadians safer from criminal violence. Chris Selly, National Post
Hallelujah! Canadians agree its time to legalize marijuana

- January 18, 2012, Vancouver Sun Headline
January 19, 2012 The Liberals are right to make it a political issueOne (Liberal) goal must
be to better differentiate the party from the ruling Conservatives, and in that respect, a new
policy on cannabis legalization represents a start. (Globe and Mail editorial)
February 15, 2012 Four former BC Attorneys Generals write an open letter saying, The
case demonstrating the failure and harms of marijuana prohibition is airtight. The evidence?
Massive profits for organized crime, wide-spread gang violence, easy access to illegal cannabis
for our youth, reduced community safety, and significant and escalating cost to taxpayers.
February 17, 2012 The Vancouver Sun endorses legalizing marijuana.

March 28, 2012 BCs Provincial Health Officer and Nova Scotias Chief Public Health Officer
say Canada should consider the model used to control and tax the sale of tobacco and alcohol
with marijuana as a way to crack down on organized crime, control availability and influence
cultural norms. (Globe and Mail)
April 27, 2012 Eight BC Mayors write a letter to provincial political leaders calling for an
end to marijuana prohibition...North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto says, We think our
communities will be safer and our children better protected from criminal elements if we
overturn marijuana prohibition. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan says, We put our citizens and
communities at risk by not talking action now. (Province Newspaper)
July 2, 2012 A nationwide survey concludes 66% of Canadians think the law should be
changed so people caught with small amounts of marijuana no longer face criminal penalties.
Support is strongest in Atlantic Canada (72%) followed by BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
Ontario (69%). Support is lowest in Alberta (42%). (Postmedia, Global TV)
August 24, 2012 Due to a lack of resources, Canadian border agents have been told to
stop looking for illegal drugs leaving the country and instead focus on stopping the export of
illicit nuclear material and stolen cars. The directive is unlikely to make US and other countries
very happy. (Postmedia News)
September 27, 2012 Hundreds of BC municipal leaders joined a vote for a policy resolution
at their annual conference to encourage the provincial government to research the regulation
and taxation of marijuana.
December 1, 2012 A shortage of treatment facilities where drug-addicted parents can stay
with their children is having a devastating impact on at-risk youth in BC, advocates say. (Victoria
Times Colonist)
December 5, 2012 Health Canada is preparing to publish new regulations to its medical
marijuana access program that could make doctors the sole gatekeepers of the drug. The
President of the Canadian Medical Association says the proposed changes could see fewer
doctors willing to prescribe it. (Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News)
As Washington State and Colorado voters now have shown, measures for legalizing the recreational use of
pot increasingly appear to make sense. They may even help turn some young people off the drug. How then
to proceed? Well, we obviously have to sort out the various federal/provincial jurisdictional niceties. And we
have to find a workable means of licensing, distributing and selling cannabis. Actually, we in BC already have
one our provincial liquor store system, which for all its faults, appears well-suited to handle
the drug and ensure it isnt sold over the counter to kids.
Jon Ferry, Province Newspaper, November 2012
December 7, 2012 Seattle smokes up legally. First state to allow personal marijuana use
stands to fill coffers. (Vancouver Sun)
The result (of marijuana prohibition) is that thousands of otherwise respectable

people, including lawyers, professors, bus drivers and yes, even journalists, engage in a
recreational habit that risks a criminal record. But its not them Im particularly
concerned with.
Aside from making an ass of the law, the marijuana business one of the most
lucrative in BC enriches all the wrong people, and at no benefit to the community.
The scum who kill in cold blood to protect their turf are the beneficiaries of a
gratuitous shower of riches even Croesus would envy.
Would legalization make marijuana more widely available? Rather the opposite if it
were subject to proper retail controls, as is liquor.
Would it be safer for white-collar professionals indulging at weekends? Certainly.
Would we have at our disposal greater resources for research into addictions, both
alcohol and drug related? Of course. Would legal marijuana put us on a slippery stop
to moral decay? I doubt it.
But I do know it would put a crippling dent in the obscene profits of the drug lords and
their trigger-happy assassins for whom the present law is just dandy, thank you.
- Alan Ferguson, Province Newspaper column, June 3, 2008
QUESTIONS
As support for the policy to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana has increased over the past
year, Canadians have asked legitimate questions about how this policy can be implemented in a
practical and organized way. This happened at the end of alcohol prohibition too.
The goal of this paper is to answer common questions and gather the answers into a draft
policy framework. The questions are identified in five categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Policy
Legal
Public Health
Logistics
The answers are based on survey responses, new laws in Colorado and Washington, existing
Canadian laws and policies, literature and publication reviews.
Everyone believesthat the current approach is not working, but its not clear
what we should do.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 17, 2012
POLICY
COMMONLY ASKED POLICY QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
WHY DO WE WANT TO LEGALIZE IT?

WHY NOT DECRIMINALIZATION INSTEAD OF LEGALIZATION?
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAXATION AND REGULATION?
SHOULD IT BE PART OF A FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT?
WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL AGE TO CONSUME IT?
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CONSUME IN PUBLIC OR AROUND CHILDREN?
HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT PEOPLE AUTHORIZED TO USE IT FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES?
WHAT WILL BE THE TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT?
HOW WILL WE GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL NOT CONTINUE TO BE A BLACK MARKET?
WHY DO WE WANT TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

While there are many, we focus on five reasons Canada should legalize and regulate marijuana.
1. Fight organized crime.
2. Use the new revenue to support important government services.
3. The current law does more harm than good. In addition to filling bank accounts of
criminals, prohibition delivers:
uncontrolled access for youth and first contact with organized crime
no product safety and labeling standards for millions of consumers
criminal records for thousands of average Canadians
a significant burden on government budgets to enforce and prosecute
4. Millions already consume marijuana in Canada each year.
5. Promotion of evidence-based policy instead of political ideology. The current law is not
achieving its goal to prevent use particularly among youth who enjoy uncontrolled
access now. A growing number of community leaders, researchers, opinion leaders and
voters agree it is time to reconsider prohibition.
WOULD A SYSTEM OF PARTIAL LEGALIZATION LIKE DECRIMINALIZATION

BE OPTIMAL INSTEAD?
No. Decriminalization of small amounts would lead to a system where it is legal to possess but
not supply. Without legalizing production, sale and consumption together, organized crime
will continue to meet the market demand and law enforcement agencies and health care
professionals will remain in limbo.
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAXATION AND REGULATION OF

MARIJUANA? SHOULD LEGALIZATION BE PART OF A
FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT?
While the implementation of a regulated system must include collaboration with provincial
and local governments, the Government of Canada must demonstrate leadership and take
the first step. We recommend this first step to be a legal framework which:
Is led by federal Ministers of Justice and Health
Developed by a special Cabinet Committee on Organized Crime
Reflects feedback from provinces and provides administrative flexibility
Includes a federal/provincial regulatory and revenue-sharing agreement based on
models established for the production, distribution and sale of alcohol and tobacco
Establishes an interim authority to oversee implementation
Is subject to review by a House of Commons Standing Committee
Once the law is approved in Parliament, provincial and local governments would be expected to
respect its provisions as they do now with other controlled substances.
WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL AGE FOR CONSUMPTION?

We recommend the legal age for consumption be the same as alcohol for each province.

No. Police, justice and correction resources should be redirected to support violent crime
investigations and attack other revenue streams of organized crime.
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CONSUME MARIJUANA IN PUBLIC OR

AROUND CHILDREN?
Provincial and municipal governments should have some flexibility within the federal regulatory
framework to place reasonable restrictions on where people can consume and purchase
cannabis as is currently done with alcohol and tobacco use. This would include activities to
protect the health and well-being of children and employees.
Washington State is proposing to prohibit the consumption of marijuana in public places where
alcohol is banned and federal facilities (military bases, national parks, etc). Failure to comply in
Washington is subject to a fine of $100 however police officers are not yet issuing tickets.
WHAT WILL BE THE TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LEGALIZATION?

The economic impact of legalizing marijuana in Canada would be very positive for the
government and taxpayers. The full scale of this benefit is the only question and it has been
the subject of increasing study. Here are some recent examples:
Washington State estimates a fully functioning marijuana market will generate over $1.9
billion over five years based on 360,000 annual consumers.
A November 2012 research paper from Simon Fraser University published in the
International Journal of Drug Policy concluded legalizing marijuana in BC may generate
$2.5 billion in government tax and licensing revenues over five years based on a
domestic provincial market of over 400,000 annual consumers
A 2009 report from the RAND Corporation for the European Commission concluded
global retail expenditures on cannabis ranged from 40-120 billion ($60-180 billion CDN)
based on a global market of over 200 million consumers.
RANDs 2009 report estimates Canadas annual retail cannabis market at .29% of GDP or
2.769 billion ($3 4 billion CDN) based on a market of 3 million annual consumers
A 2004 Fraser Institute study estimated BCs marijuana crops value at 2-4% of the
provinces GDP.
New revenues will be complemented by the ability to reallocate law enforcement, correction,
border and justice resources.
Thousands of Canadians will also find direct and indirect employment. Opportunities include:
agriculture, technology and energy supply
specialty retail stores
transportation, distribution, packaging and manufacturing
inspectors, engineers, quality controllers, licensing officers and health researchers
legal, insurance, financial and accounting services
marketing, communication, tourism and public education
alternative products - non-smokable, cosmetic products, building materials, fabrics
WOULD PEOPLE CONSUMING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES

CONTINUE TO BE IN A SPECIAL CATEGORY?
The regulations exempting medical use of marijuana are only necessary because of the current
law. With the end of prohibition, there will be no need for this legal exemption which has
proven difficult to manage for many patients, doctors, designated growers, municipal
authorities and law enforcement personnel.
In addition to saving tax dollars, replacing the federal medical marijuana program with a new
legal framework may encourage doctors and researchers to more freely explore health impacts,
alternatives to smoking and potential for inclusion of medical use in provincial health insurance
programs.
HOW WILL WE GUARANTEE THAT THERE STILL WONT BE A BLACK

MARKET FOR MARIJUANA?
While ending prohibition will put many criminals out of work, it wont end organized crime.
That said, black market sales of illegal alcohol and tobacco have not become a problem postprohibition.
Ongoing vigilance will be required and the federal government should develop a
comprehensive set of policies to attach organized crime through the Special Cabinet Committee
we have proposed.
However, strategic elements of a legal framework can help prevent a marijuana black market
from re-emerging:
ensure the legal price is lower than the current price and quality is equal or better
ensure packaging reflects consumer demand and product is accessible for adults
establish zero-tolerance on import/export
increase criminal penalties for export, unregulated suppliers and trafficking to minors
reallocate some police and law enforcement resources to border patrol
allow opportunities for Canadians to continue to grow limited amounts of marijuana
for personal use
Background United Nations

Canada is a party to three international conventions that regulate drug control:
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1961 Convention)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 (1971 Convention)
1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (1988 Convention).
Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 1988 UN Convention requires that:
Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary under its domestic law, when
committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961
Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention. (Marijuana is one
such substance)
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO
ENDING MARIJUANA PROHIBITION IN CANADA:
1. ARE WE ALLOWED TO LEGALIZE IT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? IS IT AGAINST
CANADAS TREATY?
2. HOW CAN WE DO THIS WITH THE UNITED STATES SO OPPOSED?
3. HOW WILL WE CONTROL CROSS-BORDER TRAFFICKING?
4. IS THE ILLICIT MARIJUANA TRADE IN CANADA CONNECTED TO VIOLENT CARTELS IN
ARE WE ALLOWED TO LEGALIZE IT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

IS IT AGAINST CANADAS TREATY OBLIGATIONS?
This question is more common with government than the general public. Here are four answers:
1. Canada is a sovereign country - free to make our own laws through a democratically
elected government in the House of Commons.
2. Other UN member countries have already improved their marijuana laws without
sanction.
3. Canada should lead a movement to amend out-of-date international conventions to
reflect changes in medical evidence and international consumption rates. They have
been used as an excuse for inaction and regressive thinking for too long.
4. Canada has rights to withdraw from these UN conventions, as granted in the articles of
each convention - exercisable by written notification to the UN Secretary-General.
Withdrawal would take effect one year after the date notification was received.
While some may still make the case that legalization is prima facie inconsistent with Canadas
international legal obligations, Canadas Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs identified
a number of factors in 2002 that provide state parties to these conventions with leeway
around strict application. For example:
Review, amendment and withdrawal mechanisms exist in the Conventions. (see answer
four above)
The conventions impose moral obligations on states, not legal ones. There are no
penalties or sanctions for violating the conventions other than a public rebuke by some
of the signatories.
HOW CAN WE LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IF THE UNITED STATES IS SO

OPPOSED TO IT?
This is an important question because the US is Canadas most important international ally and
trading partner. The issue will continue to evolve against prohibition in the US with successful
November 2012 state referendums to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in Colorado and
Washington state. This is reinforced by the subsequent reluctance of the US President to
enforce federal laws in these states.
In this light of these recent developments and estimates more than 25 million Americans
consume marijuana each year (RAND 2009), here are two answers to this question:
1. Public opinion is changing in the United States which does not appear to be as opposed
to the idea of legalization as they may have been in the past.
2. Canada is a sovereign country and our domestic policies regarding crime prevention and
public health should not be dictated from Washington DC. While, federal Liberal
governments have a long history of co-operation with the US on a wide range of social,
economic and global issues, we also are not afraid of respectful disagreement. Recent
examples include made in Canada decisions to:
stay out of the Iraq war
recognize gay marriage
aggressively label tobacco products with health warnings
legalize marijuana for compassionate medical purposes
HOW WILL WE CONTROL INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF CANNABIS? WILL

CANADIANS BE ABLE TO TRAVEL WITH IT?
Out of respect to other countries that may not share Canadas progressive views, we
recommend the government maintain a zero-tolerance of any import or export of marijuana
including countries and states that have decriminalized or ended prohibition.
To enforce this zero-tolerance policy, we recommend dramatically increasing criminal penalties
for the export of marijuana and reallocation of some domestic marijuana enforcement
resources to border patrol and intelligence. The vast majority of these resources would be
allocated at US border crossings.
IS CANADAS MARIJUANA TRADE CONNECTED TO VIOLENT CARTELS IN

Numerous public and public police reports connect Canadas marijuana industry to
international drug and weapons smuggling including violent cartels operating in Mexico,
Central and South America. Here are some recent examples:
April 18, 2012 - Linking the trade in B.C.-grown marijuana to drug violence in Mexico
and the United States, a former U.S. federal prosecutor has added his voice to a growing
chorus in favour of legalizing pot. Gangs affiliated with dangerous drug cartels are
distributing marijuana grown in British Columbia its being exchanged for guns and
cocaine that come up here [to BC] John McKay, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, said
at a press conference in a downtown Vancouver hotel on Wednesday. So the negative
impact of that is more than just proceeds going to Mexican drug cartels, but also whats
coming back to Canada because of this production. (Globe and Mail)
August 29, 2012 A fugitive Hells Angel wanted in connection with an alleged drugtrafficking operation turned himself in at the Burnaby RCMP detachment TuesdayThe
charges follow a 21-month investigation into allegations that marijuana grown in BCs
southeast was being sold in BC and elsewhere to fund the import of cocaine to
CanadaMounties seized $4 million in the weekend raid, including a plastic bag of $100
bills that was spotted with mould. (Vancouver Sun)
September 13, 2012 The number of gang-affiliate federal prisoners has increased
32% to more than 2300 in the past five yearsConsidering what smart people around
the globe have said for half a century, I say legalize pot. We have created a massive
underground global economy that generates billions for organized crime drug profits
are the vital lifeblood of gangs, the primary source of disposable income supporting
their lifestyle and conspicuous consumptionThe recent spate of killings should trigger
a realistic public discussion, one that considers radical solutions and broadens our
approach to dealing with gangs. Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun
November 21, 2012 Police allege marijuana grow-ops in the BC Okanagan area
were used to fund the importation of cocaine into Canada. They say they seized more
than $4 million in drug money during the 20 month operation. (Province Newspaper)
It is time to stop being dumb witnesses to a global deceit.

- Guatemala President Otto Perez, April 13, 2012
Over the past year, leaders of Mexico, Central and South America have called on the United
States to reconsider the war on drugs and join a growing discussion about a new approach
that attacks the profit and business model of organized crime.
LEGAL
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGALIZATION OF
MARIJUANA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
WHAT LAW(S) NEED TO BE CHANGED?

IS THE CURRENT LAW BEING ENFORCED? HOW MANY RESOURCES ARE ALLOCATED TO
MARIJUANA CONTROL NOW AND WOULD THOSE COSTS BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS LEGALIZED?
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO GROW IT IN THEIR HOMES IF WE LEGALIZE IT?
SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS PLACED ON THE AMOUNT ONE CAN POSSESS AND/OR PURCHASE?
WHAT WILL BE THE PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO OPERATE OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
HOW WILL WE ENFORCE IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS? WILL THEY NEED TO CHANGE?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO CRIMINAL RECORDS OF PEOPLE CHARGED FOR MARIJUANA RELATED
OFFENCES?
WHAT CANADIAN LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED?

A new legal framework must repeal Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
establish new penalties for operating outside of the legal system, create a new taxation and
regulatory structure that reflects discussions with provinces and other stakeholders.

We feel legalization of marijuana should be achieved through the political process not
imposed by courts. It is important for the Liberal Party of Canada to include ending prohibition
in its next platform as a strategy to combat organized crime. This will ensure a mandate for
change is offered to the majority of Canadians who want cannabis regulated and taxed.
Most recent court rulings on the legalization of marijuana have been focused on medical use.
Judgments have regularly favoured more access over less. Conclusions from these decisions
should be considered as a legal framework is developed. These may include:
It is likely possession cant be legalized without provisions for purchase and supply an argument against a half-measure of decriminalizing possession of small amounts
any new policy framework would likely need to allow for alternative uses and
derivatives - including non-smokable and food products
people would likely be free to grow their own for personal use under a legalized
system just as some make their own beer or wine today
the government should not overly limit supply options for consumers
In the absence of a progressive federal government, proponents may continue to initiate
expensive court challenges against prohibition in the future.
IS THE CURRENT LAW BEING ENFORCED? HOW MANY RESOURCES ARE

ALLOCATED TO MARIJUANA CONTROL AND WOULD THEY BE
ELIMINATED OR REDUCED IF MARIJUANA WAS LEGALIZED?
The current law is not being enforced equally across Canada. In some jurisdictions, possession
is prosecuted vigorously. In others, charges are often not filed. Sentencing provisions are
similarly unequal across Canada.
Across Canada 28,183 people were charged with possession of marijuana last
year, or about 81 charges per 100,000 people. According to a 2011 Health Canada
survey, about 9% of Canadians over 15 used marijuana in the past year. That
suggests one in 90 pot users was criminally charged.
- Vancouver Sun, Zoe McKnight, November 2012
Regarding the costs of enforcing the current law, these are often buried in operating budgets of
the border agency, police, correction service and courts making them difficult to calculate.
However, 2005 federal Treasury Board documents published by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network suggest $368 million was spent that year on addressing illicit drugs. Of this, 73% ($271
million) was targeted to enforcement initiatives such as border control ($80 million), RCMP
investigations ($75 million), drug analysis services ($8 million) and federal prosecutions ($90
million).
While a legal framework will not eliminate these costs, we expect they will be reduced
significantly with opportunities to redirect savings to youth programs, border protection,
addressing violent crimes, attacking other profits of organized crime and community
partnerships with provincial and municipal governments.
WILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO GROW IT IN THEIR HOMES FOR

PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OR PRIVATE SALE?
Yes. While we expect the interest or need for individuals to grow their own to be greatly
reduced post-prohibition, it should not and likely could not - be eliminated. At the same time,
sale of marijuana should be limited to businesses and require proper licensing.
The State of Colorado is planning to impose a limit of six plants per person as part of their
legalization plan scheduled to take effect in January 2013. We believe a maximum number of
plants for personal use should be determined following consultation with provinces, local
governments and other stakeholders.
SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS PLACED ON THE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA

ONE CAN POSSESS AND/OR PURCHASE?
Yes. While we expect there will be little need for Canadian adults to stock-up on product if
quality cannabis is legal and readily available, we are concerned about the potential for
organized crime to easily stockpile legal product for smuggling to other countries.
According to consumption statistics (RAND 2009), monthly marijuana users in Canada consume
an average of 1 gram per day or one ounce (28 grams) each month. Washington State plans
to allow adults to possess only one ounce of marijuana at a time.
We feel Washingtons one ounce limit may create unnecessary, ongoing enforcement
requirements and restrict people growing their own for personal use - where one plant may
yield more than an ounce of product.
In this light we recommend a four ounce (.10 kg) limitation be considered for the amount a
non-licensed vendor or distributor can purchase or possess without obtaining a special permit,
subject to consultation with consumers, distributors, law enforcement and producers. We feel
this is reasonable and akin to purchasing a 40 or 60 oz. bottle of vodka or whisky a couple times
a year instead of buying a small bottle each month.
Other limits would need to be established for cannabis-infused goods, plants for personal use
and marijuana in liquid form. Washington State has established a 16 ounce (.45kg) possession
limit on cannabis-infused goods or up to 72 ounces (2.4kg) for cannabis in liquid form.
WHAT WILL BE THE PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO OPERATE OUTSIDE

THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
As marijuana will be legal, tougher penalties and sentences are justified for those operating
outside the legal system particularly those attempting to sell marijuana to minors and/or
smuggle it into other countries for cash, other drugs and weapons. That said, experience with
the end of alcohol prohibition and tobacco regulation suggests few Canadians will be interested
in the black market as long as the product is more accessible, as good and less expensive.
HOW WILL WE ENFORCE IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS? WILL THEY NEED

TO CHANGE?
Driving impaired as a result of marijuana use is already against the law in all jurisdictions in
Canada. Provincial governments are able to introduce new regulations regarding impaired
driving as they choose this should be reaffirmed in a new federal framework.
However, we support increased penalties for all impaired drivers and providing police with
more accurate tools to detect when motorists are under the influence of marijuana. With
legalization, we recommend the federal government invest revenues to improve detection
technology, training support and research regarding effects of cannabis use and intoxication.
We also recommend monitoring the results of Washington States proposal to establish
presumptive levels of intoxication for THC concentration when a driver is arrested for suspicion
of being under the influence. These have been set at 0.0 for drivers under the age of 21 and 5
nanograms/milliliter of blood for drivers aver 21. Washingtons Licensing Department will be
able to revoke the drivers license of a person who tests above the presumptive level of THC.
What is THC?
THC is Tetrahydrocannabinol - the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. The amount
of THC in marijuana ranges from 1% to 20% and depends on how it was grown, the genetic makeup of the
plant and the amount of flower parts, leaves, stems and seeds. In hash THC amounts vary depending on
the source and how it is prepared. Hash oil generally contains 10% to 20% and considered the most
concentrated form of the drug. Health Canada | November 2012
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO CRIMINAL RECORDS OF CANADIANS CONVICTED

OF MARIJUANA RELATED OFFENCES?
A survey prepared for this paper invited federal Liberals and British Columbians to answer this
question. Of the 1000 respondents, approximately 80% said Canadians with prior convictions
for marijuana possession should have their records cleared. We agree.
Canadians convicted of trafficking marijuana or those who have been charged outside of
Canada should continue to have access to exiting processes associated with pardons, clemency
and the purging of records where minor infractions are involved.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Common questions about the public health implications of marijuana use and the impact
legalization may or may not have:
1.
2.
3.
4.
How many Canadians use it, how much do they use and how many are under 18?
What are the health implications of chronic, moderate and occasional consumption?
What are the public health impacts of legalizing it or not?
Would legalization increase the number of consumers?
HOW MANY CANADIANS CONSUME MARIJUANA ON A REGULAR BASIS?

HOW MUCH DO THEY USE AND HOW MANY ARE UNDER THE AGE OF18?
In its 2011 report, the UN Office for Drugs and Crime estimated 5% of the worlds population
(230 million) used illegal drugs at least once in 2010. Cannabis was identified as the most
widely used illegal drug in the world (estimated at 125 to 200 million people).
A breakdown of 2005 UN figures estimate Canadas consumption rate to be one of the highest
in the world at 17% of the population aged 15 to 64 much higher than Asia (2%), Europe (5%)
and the United States (12%). This translates to 3 million Canadians using marijuana each year.
These figures are similar to a 2009 report from the RAND Corporation for the European
Commission that generated country-level consumption and retail expenditure estimates for
cannabis. Among other things, the RAND report concluded:
global retail expenditures on cannabis range from 40-120 billion ($50-150 billion CDN)
each year
Canadas annual retail cannabis market is best estimated at 2.769 billion ($4 5 billion
CDN) or .29% of GDP
An estimated 2 million Canadians over 15 consume cannabis at least once a month and
3.4 million once a year
Monthly users consume an average of 2.5 cigarettes or 1 gram each day
Annual users in Canada consume an average of 1.25 cigarettes - or .5 grams each day
Average total of marijuana in each Canadian marijuana cigarette is just under .5 grams
A 2010 Health Canada survey indicates that about 366,000 British Columbians use
marijuana, almost exactly the number as in Washington State.
- Province Newspaper, November 21, 2012
HOW MANY CANADIANS CONSUME MARIJUANA HOW MANY ARE

UNDER THE AGE OF18? (CONT.)
Regarding youth consumption, we believe unregulated access to marijuana has contributed
to growing rates of use as opposed to tobacco where regulatory controls have led to
declining youth smoking rates. Here are some recent reports:
A 2007 Health Canada report concluded 8.2% of young Canadians used cannabis on a
daily basis.
In August 2012, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS reported more than half of
adolescent drug users surveyed said they could access marijuana, heroin, cocaine or
crystal meth within 10 minutes.
We recommend the new framework include significant direct investments on youth
engagement initiatives ranging from prevention, awareness and treatment services to
recreation, employment, community and cultural programs.
We also recommend increasing penalties for those convicted of trafficking to minors.
Numbers supplied by the Toronto-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
study show the percentage of the population 50 and older indulging (in marijuana)
has increased 500% since a 1977 report, with them now making up 14% of dope
smokers. When the study looked at the general population, it found puffing pot
was going up in almost every age group. People who admitted smoking cannabis in
their latest study jumped from just under 9% to more than 13%; 30-49 year olds
had doubled their use.
- Postmedia News, David Sherman, November 24, 2012

OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION?
As marijuana has been legalized for medical use and more accepted in general, an increasing
amount of research is emerging on its effects. Canadian doctors prescribe marijuana to more
than 20,000 people to treat conditions ranging from Alzheimers, premenstrual syndrome,
seizures and migraines to glaucoma, MS, OCD, ADD and HIV/AIDS.
As this paper is not presented as a scientific document, we dont make any conclusions based
on recent research findings on the health impacts of marijuana or lack of them.
Instead we have conducted a scan of media reports over the past year and explored what a few
doctors have to say. All demonstrate conflicting views and the need for more research in a
regulated legal environment instead of the murky edges of the black market.
Here is a sample of some reports that have appeared in various media over the past couple
years about cancer and cannabis use:
2012 US HMO Study of 61,000 insured patients showed no increased risk of lung,
colorectal, melanoma, or breast cancers in current or former cannabis smokers versus
those who have never smoked or experimenters when controlled for tobacco use,
alcohol intake and socioeconomic status.
2012 report from the British Lung Foundation warned smoking marijuana is hazardous
to the lungs and can also cause tuberculosis and Legionnaires disease. The study
showed public awareness of the health consequences was low with almost one-third of
the British population believing it is not harmful.
2011 University of Colorado Cancer Centre Study concluded that there is little direct
evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are carcinogenic.
A 2007 study by Harvard University researchers found that THC in marijuana cut tumor
growth in half in common lung cancer tumours and significantly reduced the cancers
ability to spread.
2005 University of California study concluded that smoking marijuana - even regularly
and heavily - does not lead to lung cancer.

OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION? (CONT.)
Addiction Impact
The Lancet has compared the harm of 20 drugs using a 0-3 scale to measure addiction. The
results:
Heroin 3.00
Cocaine 2.37
Tobacco 2.23
Barbiturates 2.01
Alcohol - 1.93
Benzodiazepines - 1.83
Amphetamine 1.67
Cannabis 1.51
LSD 1.23
Ecstasy 1.13
The University of Victoria Centre for Addiction found alcohol causes more than
twice as many deaths as all major illicit drugs combined, and tobacco causes on
average five times more deaths than alcohol.
Globe and Mail, November 4, 2008
IQ Impact
In August 2012, Reuters reported on one of the worlds largest and longest running
marijuana research studies that concluded people who wait until they are adults to take
up cannabis do not show any significant mental declines in their memory and
intelligence. However, the unprecedented study concluded that teenagers who become
hooked on cannabis before they reach 18 may be causing lasting damage.
A recent report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences about a long-term study of more than 1000 pot-using teens
in New Zealand said that those who continued smoking into their
30s suffered significant cognitive deficits related to memory,
reasoning and ability to process information.
- Globe and Mail, November 23, 2012
ASK THE DOCTOR

We decided to get a rural doctors opinion on the health impacts of marijuana use. Here is what Port
Albernis Dr. Michael I. McGuire told us:
In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have worked to license THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) for
medical purposes, in particular Nabilone (an oral medication used for nausea from cancer chemotherapy and
as an appetite stimulant in the cancer setting) and Sativex (an oral spray licensed for treating neuropathic
pain in multiple sclerosis). In the extensive testing required for licensing by Health Canada, virtually no serious
side effects were encountered.
There is addiction potential with cannabis, in fact some authorities estimate as many as 10% of regular users
will develop an addiction syndrome and suffer personal, social and occupational harm as a consequence. To
keep a proper perspective, the frequency and severity of cannabis addiction is on the low end of the scale
compared to alcohol and tobacco. In addition, the withdrawal syndrome resulting from sudden cessation is
relatively mild, consisting of drug craving and irritability lasting 3-7 days.
There is an observed statistical correlation between cannabis and the onset of schizophrenia with psychotic
symptoms. However, there is no evidence that there is a causal relationship between cannabis and
schizophrenia. Over the past 50 years, cannabis use in North America has increased several-fold, whereas
schizophrenia rates have remained constant.
Studies have not demonstrated a link between lung cancer and cancers of the neck and throat despite
researchers expectation to the contrary. Cannabis has not been shown to cause chronic lung disease,
although it does cause worsening of symptoms in those already suffering from cigarette induced chronic
obstructive lung disease.
A Canadian performed study reported in the CMAJ (Dr. Peter Fried 2002) showed that current heavy cannabis
smokers demonstrated a 4% drop in measured IQ compared to pre-adolescent testing. Light smokers showed
no change, and previous heavy smokers similarly showed no change. Conclusion: you are dumber while you
are stoned but there does not seem to be any lasting effects on intelligence.
DR. MELDON KAHAN, MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF THE SUBSTANCE USE SERVICE AT WOMENS
COLLEGE HOSPITAL IN TORONTO SAYS, (BUT) THERES NO ROLE, OR HARDLY ANY ROLE FOR
SMOKED CANNABIS IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PAIN. THERE ARE SAFER ALTERNATIVES
SUCH AS CANNABIS IN PILL FORM OR INHALERS. THERE ARE TOXINS IN CANNABIS SMOKE THAT
ARE CARCINOGEN AND ACCELERATE HEART DISEASE. SMOKED CANNABIS IS ADDICTING, UNSAFE
DURING PREGNANCY AND ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN TERMS OF
TRIGGERING PSYCHOSIS, DEPRESSION AND MOOD DISORDERS. - GLOBE AND MAIL, NOVEMBER 2012
WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

AND/OR NOT DOING IT?
We conclude legalizing marijuana and regulating its sale, distribution, promotion and price
will have a positive impact on public health and safety by:
Making it easier to prohibit youth access as has been the case for tobacco.
Ensuring marijuana is grown in a controlled and regulated setting with strict labeling
provisions to better protect the health of consumers and producers.
Delivering billions of dollars in new revenue that government can reinvest in public
health care including mental illness, treatment, education and awareness initiatives.
Encouraging the private sector and academic organizations to expand research into
health impacts.
Reducing profits for organized crime which results in safer communities and less
opportunity for young people to join gangs.
Forcing fewer Canadians to live with stress and stigma associated with having a criminal
record for doing something 3 million other Canadians do each year.
Increasing availability of marijuana for people who use it for medical reasons or already
have prescriptions for a doctor.
Increasing availability of police resources to control violent crime and other revenue
streams of organized crime.
Reducing disincentives for people to reveal personal use will lead to earlier treatment as
needed.
Creating a responsible and accountable industry that becomes a co-regulator and
complies with improving regulations.
In contrast, maintaining the current prohibition will protect the status quo for organized
crime, guarantee ongoing and uncontrolled access to marijuana for youth and continue to
create more harm than good.
By moving from a violent, unregulated market whose motive is profit to a strictly

regulated market whose goals are public health
we can actually reduce rates of use.
Dr. Evan Wood, Simon Fraser University researcher, Vancouver Sun, November 21, 2013
WOULD A LEGALIZED SYSTEM OF MARIJUANA REDUCE OR INCREASE

THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS?
There are already a significant number of
Canadians consuming cannabis. Studies
identified in this paper estimate more than 3
million Canadians use marijuana each year
and 2 million do it every month. Children and
youth under 18 are accessing marijuana easily
with the current prohibition.

McReary Centre Society, April 15, 2009
Some countries that have introduced decriminalization policies have seen drug use and petty
crime rates decline. Since Portugal abolished criminal penalties for possession in 2001, teenage
drug use has declined while referrals to addiction treatment have doubled. The rate of cannabis
use in the Netherlands is 5% compared to 12% in the United States.
There is little evidence to suggest that consumption rates will rise dramatically if marijuana is
legalized particularly since cannabis is not as addictive as most drugs.
In Canada, some doctors and researchers have said a strictly regulated legal marijuana market
has the potential to meaningfully reduce rates of marijuana use, in the same way that
regulatory tools have dramatically cut rates of tobacco use.
We recommend that a new federal framework include particular emphasis on restricting access
for youth, promoting prevention partnerships with local school districts to educate students
and teachers and tough penalties for anyone convicted of selling to minors. This will be
particularly important since we expect the price of legal marijuana to be lower than it is now.
But what about the innocent children who will be exposed to these drugs if they
become freely available throughout society? The answer is nothing that doesnt
happen to them now. There is no city and few rural areas in the developed world
where you cannot buy any illegal drug known to man within half an hour, for an
amount of money that can be raised by any enterprising 14-year old. Indeed, the
supply of really nasty drugs would probably diminish if prohibition ended because they
are mainly a response to the level of risk the dealers must face.
Gwynne Dyer, January 14, 2007
LOGISTICS
COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA:
1. WILL A LEGAL SYSTEM RESEMBLE THE CURRENT WAY WE BUY AND SELL ALCOHOL AND
TOBACCO?
2. WHICH FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES WOULD BE INVOLVED?
3. HOW WILL LEGALIZATION IMPACT CURRENT CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS?
4. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? WHERE WILL PEOPLE PURCHASE IT AND HOW WILL IT BE
PACKAGED?
5. HOW WILL IT BE TAXED? HOW WILL THE REVENUE BE REALLOCATED?
6. WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCERS AND
DISTRIBUTERS?
7. HOW MUCH WOULD CANADIAN PRODUCERS NEED TO GROW?
8. WOULD WE LIMIT THE MARKET TO CANADIAN COMPANIES AND DOMESTIC SUPPLIERS?
9. WHO WILL GROW IT?
10. WILL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS BE ABLE TO PUT COMMERCIAL PROTECTIONS ON
CERTAIN STRAINS, AND BRANDS? WHAT WILL BE THE POTENCY?
WILL A LEGAL SYSTEM OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, DISTRIBUTION

AND SALES RESEMBLE ALCOHOL, TOBACCO OR NEITHER? ARE THERE
OTHER MODELS TO CONSIDER?
Since marijuana is an intoxicant, we recommend the federal/provincial system of alcohol
production, distribution and sale provides the best model for Canadas legal marijuana
framework. This approach would include:
consultation with provincial and municipal governments
elements of tobacco control policy particularly as it relates to packaging, labeling
youth strategy and restrictions on promotion, point of sale and marketing
consultation with retailers, producers and consumers
elements of other national regulatory regimes such as natural health products, medical
marijuana, fisheries, agriculture and hemp cultivation
WHICH FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE INVOLVED

IN THE REGULATION, INSPECTION AND MONITORING OF PRODUCTION,
DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SALES?
We recommend federal Ministers of Justice and Health be responsible for leading a policy
that would be developed with the support of a Special Cabinet Committee on Organized
Crime. The Committee would include Ministers for other federal departments with an
interest in the policy:
Solicitor General/RCMP
Ministry of Agriculture
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs
Canada Revenue Agency
Industry Canada
Human Resources Development
Privy Council Office/Intergovernmental Affairs
These federal agencies will be required to work with provincial counterparts and include an
emphasis on municipal affairs. We recommend this work be supported by an interim project
management authority and refer items to relevant House of Commons Committees.
Washington States proposal to transition from prohibition to taxation provides a preview of
the some administrative requirements agencies may need to consider in Canada. They
estimate a five-year cost of $65 million to fully implement a licensing, regulatory and taxation
plan for a market of 360,000 consumers. Supported by a Dedicated Marijuana Fund, these
operating requirements include:
Liquor Control Board (LCB) for rulemaking, licensure and enforcement - $13.6 million
Departments of Social and Health Services for implementation services - $10 million
Washington State Patrol for additional training on marijuana impairment - $2 million
Department of Licensing to revoke licenses for driving under the influence - $425,000
Office of the Attorney General for legal services to LCB - $318,000
Washington State Patrol Toxicology Laboratory for blood testing cases - $125,000
Offices of the Attorney General and Administrative Hearings for appeals - $125,000
Department of Revenue to administer tax collection from license holders - $90,000
Washington State Patrol for background checks for LCB license applicants - $28,000
Department of Agriculture to develop testing laboratory accreditation standards $26,000
Administrative Office of the Courts for information technology changes to the Judicial
Information System - $3,000
Washington State is proposing a one-year timeline to fully implement their system.
HOW WILL LEGALIZATION IMPACT CURRENT CONSUMERS?

We believe marijuana legalization will have a positive impact on the 3 million-plus annual
adult consumers in Canada. Among other things they will experience:
no more contact with illegal drug dealers and organized crime
access to safer and labeled product
reliable and convenient access
lower prices
increased access to treatment as needed
public benefits associated with reallocation of new government revenues
Non-adult marijuana users will experience significantly reduced access to marijuana and
more exposure to more education, awareness and prevention programs.

ABLE TO PURCHASE IT AND HOW WILL IT BE PACKAGED?
COST
To be successful and prevent organized crime from maintaining a black market, the price of
legal marijuana must be lower than it is now. At the same time, the products quality must be
at least as good if not better.
In Canada, pricing legal marijuana should consider:
the black market cost of marijuana differs from one region to another
bulk purchase is encouraged in the black market - the more you buy, the cheaper it is
consumers commonly purchase either one gram, seven grams (1/4 ounce), 14 grams
(1/2 ounce) or 28 grams (one ounce) at a time
very few consumers purchase more than one or two ounces (28-56 grams) at a time
legal growers, distributors and retailers will still need to make a profit in a legal system
The 2009 RAND Corporation Report for the European Commission measured the street price of
cannabis around the world. They concluded the average price in Canada per bulk gram was
$6.50. The federal government initially set their price of medical marijuana in Canada at $5 per
single unit gram but with new rules it is expected to increase to at least $8 per single unit gram.
Meanwhile, Washington State expects their average retail price under their legalized system
will be $12 per gram. They have based this price on medical marijuana dispensaries and do not
assume any increased consumption or competition will reduce prices. Washingtons estimate
assumes a $3 per gram producer price and a $6 per gram processor price.

COST
(CONT.)
Based on these factors, we recommend the price of legal marijuana be lower than what
Washington State is proposing and at least 30-35% lower than the current black market price.
We think this is achievable because marijuana is relatively easy to produce and process. One of
the most significant costs of production now is the risk of being caught by authorities or being
robbed by a violent criminal.
We also recommend a new legal framework allow provinces to adopt pricing variations which
could facilitate the sale and marketing of premium brands as is the case with alcohol today.
Subject to discussions with provincial authorities, consumers, potential producers and
distributors, here is a basic proposed price list for legal marijuana in Canada compared to the
current black market rates (all taxes included):
ILLEGAL
LEGAL
ALL PROCEEDS TO ORGANIZED CRIME
1 gram - $10-$15
28 grams (ounce) - $220-$260
ALL PROCEEDS TO TAXPAYERS
1 gram - $6-$10
28 grams (ounce) - $140-$170
PACKAGING
Product packaging will be determined almost exclusively by market research and demand. The
vast majority of black market marijuana is sold in dried plant form in bag pouches.
Other than established labeling and product safety requirements, we recommend the new
framework allow consumers to have access to a variety of packaging options, which could
include rolled cigarettes, bag pouches, plastic jars/bottles, edible products and teas.

POINT OF PURCHASE
To many Canadians, point of purchase will be the most visible element of a new legal framework.
For those who chose not to grow their own for personal use, we recommend legal marijuana be
sold to the public through specialty private stores and/or anywhere regulated liquor sales take
place. Limiting point of purchase to these locations will help ensure minors cannot come in
contact with the product.
We do not recommend allowing marijuana to be sold at convenience stores and gas stations as
is the case with tobacco, however provincial and municipal governments will have flexibility to
place reasonable restrictions on where people can consume and purchase cannabis as is
currently done with alcohol and tobacco use. A license to sell would need to be obtained.
This approach reflects Washingtons States plan to require purchase through a Liquor Control
Board (LCB) licensee. Their plan makes no assumptions that a portion of users will purchase
from the illegal market or from medical marijuana retailers. They also make no assumptions
about consumer migration from out of state or the consumption of marijuana-infused products.
Washingtons proposal includes a $250 application fee and a $1,000 issuance/renewal fee for
each licensee. All fees will be deposited into the states Dedicated Marijuana Fund. Some
recovery fees will also be applied to licensees for activities related to enforcement of quality
control measures such as product sampling, testing, labeling and inspection.
To determine the number of retail outlets/licenses, Washington State plans to allow LCB to
caps retail licenses by county, consider population, security issues and discouraging purchases
from illegal markets. They expect over 320 retail outlets will serve their domestic annual
market of 360,000 consumers or over 1100 per location.
At the same rate, Canadian businesses and non-profit organizations would need to staff over
2,700 retail locations to serve Canadas three million annual consumers creating significant
direct and indirect employment opportunities.
Liquor store locations are usually discreet and not near schools and dont have the
product in window displays and have age-restriction protocols in place. It would be
the simplest business model that currently exists to use, so I would recommend it and
then gain consumer feedback over three years and see what changes the consumer
would like, balanced with any public safety concerns.
Marc Emery, Province Newspaper, November 9, 2012
HOW WILL MARIJUANA BE TAXED, HOW WILL THIS REVENUE BE SHARED

BETWEEN VARIOUS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND HOW WILL IT BE
REALLOCATED?
When considering the taxation rate on legal marijuana, it is worth noting that in some regions
of Canada, as much of 45% of the total cost of a package or carton of cigarettes is tax for the
government.
Washington State is projecting annual revenue of over $565 million by 2015 based on 360,000
annual consumers and excise taxes of 25% on the selling price on each wholesale and retail sale
of marijuana from a licensed producer, processor or retailer. State business and occupation
taxes will also apply to these activities.
Based on Washington States projections (363,000 consumers = $565 million annual revenue)
and in light of similar consumption and price trends in Canada, we conclude annual government
revenue in Canada from legalized marijuana based on 3 million annual consumers would likely
exceed $4 billion/year.
We recommend that 30-35% as the preferred tax rate of legalized marijuana in Canada. This
would include HST, GST and PST wherever relevant and some flexibility for provinces to
adjust rates.
In addition to the final tax rate, we also recommend local and provincial governments adopt a
cost recovery approach to the collection of business, licensing, inspection and workplace safety
fees and services.
We recommend the majority of new revenue from legalization be reinvested to strengthen
Canadas public health care system in partnership with provincial governments. This should
include a special emphasis on mental illness, health promotion, addiction treatment and
community youth partnerships.
As an example, Washington State has identified funding priorities for some of their new
revenue. These include (figures are annual):
Health Care - $135 million
General Revenue - $45.7 million
Initiatives to prevent and reduce substance abuse - $36.6 million
Marijuana education and public health program - $24.4 million
University of Washington and Washington State University for research on effects of
marijuana use and development of web-based public education materials - $2.5 million
WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE

PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTERS?
In cooperation with provincial governments, we recommend the new framework include
comprehensive provisions to ensure quality control based on established standards for tobacco,
alcohol and hemp production and compliance with municipal by-laws and business licensing
rules.
In addition to site safety requirements and inspection powers for relevant federal agencies,
these guidelines should allow for various levels of THC, other cannabinoid content and cannabis
strains.
Washington States prohibition transition plan acknowledged a lack of sufficient data to
estimate the number of marijuana producers and marijuana processers they expect to apply for
a license. However, for 363,000 annual consumers they expect 100 marijuana producers and
55 processers. They also assume 50% of marijuana is produced and processed by the same
seller - with the rest produced and sold to a processor.
HOW MUCH MARIJUANA WOULD CANADIAN PRODUCERS NEED TO

GROW?
Producers will grow as much marijuana as needed to meet public demand recognizing that
cannabis is a storable product that will maintain its quality over extended periods of time.
The 2009 RAND Corporation Report for the European Commission calculated the amount of
marijuana consumed in countries around the world. The report concluded that Canadas 3
million annual cannabis consumers use 410 metric tonnes of marijuana or 410 million grams.
Washington State measured frequency of consumption using the pattern contained in the UN
Office on Drug and Crime. The frequency ranged from a low of 18% using once a year to 3%
consuming daily. Applying this pattern and assuming 2 grams of marijuana per use, they
estimate 85 million grams are consumed annually per year to serve 360,000 annual consumers.
The same formula applied to Canadas domestic market of 3 million annual consumers would
require the production of at least 800 million grams per year or 800 metric tonnes.
WOULD WE LIMIT THE MARKET TO CANADIAN COMPANIES AND

DOMESTIC SUPPLIERS?
Based on our recommendation to apply a zero-tolerance to import/export of marijuana, we
recommend that the new Canadian legal framework limit market access to domestic suppliers.
WHO IS GOING TO GROW IT?

In addition to allowing individual Canadians to grow a limited number of marijuana plants for
personal use, we expect Canadas private sector and local non-profit societies will likely be the
main producers, distributors and retailers of marijuana products.
We recommend that before final decisions are made about the structure of this new industry,
the federal government consult the sector and other interested parties as the new framework
is constructed. These discussions should focus on the roles of each level of government,
identifying consumer demands and the scope of a new regulatory framework. Among other
things, we recommend these discussions include the following policy objectives:
government should regulate but not have any direct ownership in any corporation that
produces marijuana
the market should be open to a large range of Canadian businesses from very small
farms to medium size and large-scale operations
discretion regarding the purchasing of marijuana rest primarily with entities that have
been licensed by provinces to sell it
flexibility for packaging options
establishment and enforcement of quality control and product safety standards by
relevant federal health and agriculture agencies
price controls to curtail black market
WILL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS PLACE COMMERCIAL PROTECTIONS

ON STRAINS AND BRANDS? WHAT WILL BE THE POTENCY?
The new framework will respect Canadas current laws and processes regarding patent and
trademark protection. However, we recommend this issue be explored more thoroughly to
consider which protections currently exist and new discoveries associated with a decade of
legal medical marijuana production. These discussions may also consider current models
applied in the agriculture sector regarding particular strains of products.
With regard to THC levels, as noted earlier in the paper, the new framework must ensure legal
marijuana is at least the same quality as to what is found on the street today if not better.
According to the RCMP, Health Canada found an average THC level of 4.8% in marijuana sold on
the street in 1988. The average level was 11.1% in 2008.
We recommend the new framework allow for variance in THC rates and be subject to
consultation with various levels of government and potential sector partners. Marketing of
various premium brands should be allowed with the understanding that growing conditions
and THC level must be included on the product label. This can be based on current alcohol
content requirements for beer, wine and spirits.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A growing number of Canadians and community leaders have joined the call to end
marijuana prohibition in Canada. However, there are legitimate questions about how
legalization would work and what the public impact will be.
2. The five best reasons to end the current prohibition are:
Fight organized crime.
Significant new revenue will support important government services.
The current law does more harm than good.
Commitment to evidence-based policy instead of political ideology.
Millions are using cannabis now.
3. Decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana is a compromise that will please no
one. It would result in a system where it is legal to possess but not to sell or purchase.
Law enforcement agencies would remain in limbo.
4. Changing opinions in the Unites States are weakening a long-standing obstacle to ending
the prohibition of cannabis in Canada.
5. While ending prohibition will require partnership with provincial and municipal
governments, the federal government must take the first step by introducing
legislation in the House of Commons that would be:
led by federal Ministers of Justice and Health and a special Cabinet Committee
on Organized Crime
responsive to feedback from provinces and provide administrative flexibility
overseen by an interim authority to implement and consult with stakeholders
subject to review by House of Commons Standing Committee
6. Ending prohibition will have a positive impact of the Canadian economy. In addition to
generating an estimated $4 billion each year in new government revenue, there will be
thousands of new direct and indirect employment opportunities.

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT.)
7. Ending prohibition will have a positive impact on public health and safety in Canada
by:
Regulating the sale, distribution, promotion and price of marijuana, making it
easier for government to prohibit youth access
Ensuring marijuana is grown in controlled and regulated settings with strict
labeling provisions to better protect the health of consumers and producers
Delivering billions in new government revenue which can be reinvested in public
health care including mental illness, treatment, education and awareness
Expanding private sector and academic research into health impacts
Decreasing profit for organized crime, creating safer streets and communities
and less opportunity for young people to join gangs
Increasing availability of police resources to fight violent crime and other
revenue streams of organized crime
8. The new federal legal framework should include the following elements:
The minimum age of consumption should be same as alcohol for each province.
A revenue-sharing template with provinces.
Significant investments for youth health promotion initiatives.
Provisions for provincial and municipal governments to place reasonable
restrictions on where people can consume and purchase cannabis.
Comprehensive packaging, labeling, promotion, point of sale, price, quality and
marketing regulations
Provisions that allow individual Canadians to grow limited number of marijuana
plants for personal use.
Establish zero-tolerance and increase criminal penalties for import/export,
unregulated suppliers and trafficking to minors.
Reallocate police and law enforcement resources.
Tougher penalties for impaired driving
Limitation on the amount of marijuana a non-licensed vendor or distributor can
purchase or possess without obtaining a special permit.
Limit point of purchase to specialty stores and regulated liquor stores.
Enable open marketplace for wide range of Canadian businesses
Flexibility for variety of packaging options.
Process to clear records for Canadians with prior convictions for marijuana
possession.
NEXT STEPS
LPC-BC and YLC should distribute this policy paper to:
YLC and LPC-BC members and post on-line for public comment.
Liberal Party of Canada provincial associations across the country.
Federal Liberal Caucus members and invite their response.
Candidates seeking the leadership of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada with a
recommendation to:
include the policy resolution to legalize marijuana that was approved by close
80% of delegates at the January 2012 Biennial Policy Conference in the next
election platform
consider paper as a foundation for the establishment of new policy framework
to facilitate the end of marijuana prohibition in Canada and proactively respond
to questions Canadians are rightfully asking about the proposal

2016 AKBLG Resolutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 AKBLG Resolutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON

REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

February 1, 2016 Regular

BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS:

OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES:

Regional Hospital District Capital Funding

WHEREAS Regional Hospital Districts were created by provincial legislation to raise a

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

STRENGTHENING THE CAPITAL PLANNING AND COST

Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Leif Wergeland Director

! Rajat Sharma Manager Health Facilities Planning Division

! Lynn Paterson Treasurer

Chris Mazurkewich Chief Financial Officer

! Nicola Huppertz Corporate Director, Facilities Management

Manjit Sidhu Assistant Deputy Minister

Kevin Brewster Executive Director, Capital Planning

! Scarlette Verjinschi Director, Capital Services

Barry Cheal Chief Financial Officer

! Mike Hoefer Executive Director, Capital Planning and Support Services

Tony Briglio Chair

! Joan Rysavy Administrator

Ella Brown Chair, Healthy Communities Committee

Robert Hobson President (20082009)

Susan Gimse President (20072008)

Gary MacIsaac Executive Director

Marylyn Chiang Policy Analyst

Vancouver Island Health Authority

Chris Sullivan Director, Capital Planning

iCapital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Predictability of Funding Requirements

Roles and Relationships

2Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

The Provincial Government, through the Ministry of Health Services, is asked to

3Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

The UBCM is asked to monitor implementation progress on a semiannual basis and

4Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Chapter 1: Why the Project Was Undertaken

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Phase 4: Issues/Opportunities Identification

PHASE 1: PROJECT MOBILIZATION JULY 2008

Health Authority/Regional Hospital District Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs);

Minutes of Joint Meetings between the above 2 parties;

RHD Board members and Contact Information;

Policies, procedures and definitions related to capital funding;

Financial data on capital spending;

Any applicable background information/documentation on projects funded outside of

6Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

PHASE 2: DEVELOPING BASELINE PLANNING FRAMEWORK JULY/AUGUST 2008

PHASE 3: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2008

Selected members of UBCM;

Senior administrative staff from RHDs;

Representatives from the Ministry of Health Services; and

Others identified by the Steering Committee, MOHS, HAs and RHDs.

PHASE 4: OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION AND FOLLOWUP STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Identification of innovative solutions to address current system issues;

7Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Consider strategic and operational improvements that can be implemented in the

Outline preliminary recommendations surrounding priority issues; and

Identifying change management issues that will need to be addressed.

PHASE 5: REPORTING OCTOBER 2008

8Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update

Chapter 2: Context for Capital Funding in B.C.

9Capital Funding Cost Sharing Review Update