Province to modernize Gaming and Liquor Act prior to cannabis legalization

Minister Ganley and Minister Ceci are joined by Alain Maisonneuve, president and CEO, Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) to discuss cannabis legalization and amendments to the Gaming and Liquor Act.

Updating legislation to prepare for legal cannabis

Albertans’ health and safety will be top priority as the province looks to modernize the Gaming and Liquor Act before cannabis is legalized by the federal government.

The amendments would give the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) the tools necessary to oversee and enforce Alberta’s new cannabis market in advance of cannabis legalization, expected this summer.

“We remain focused on building a system for legal cannabis that prioritizes the safety and security of all Albertans. These amendments to the Gaming and Liquor Act represent another step in our continued work to prepare for the legalization of cannabis.”

Kathleen Ganley, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General

The updates, which include increased fines and naming restrictions, would help to further protect public health, keep cannabis out of the hands of children and limit the illegal market.

“Restricting how cannabis retailers name their stores and products is an important step in protecting public health. Stores that will sell cannabis for recreational use are not pharmacies, nor will they have professional oversight from pharmacy practitioners. The Alberta College of Pharmacists supports this legislation.”

Greg Eberhart, registrar, Alberta College of Pharmacists

If passed, the proposed amendments would:

Prohibit naming and branding cannabis retailers and products with terms and symbols that have medical connotations such as “therapeutic” or “medicinal.”
Increase the maximum administrative fines for infractions of the Gaming and Liquor Act and regulation from $200,000 to $1 million.
Allow a court to rely on a law enforcement officer’s ability to infer that a product is cannabis based on its packaging, labelling or smell, for the purposes of offenses under this act, mirroring the current practice for alcohol and tobacco.
Create an offence to enable enforcement against an owner or operator of a premises who allows smoking or vaping of cannabis where it is prohibited, similar to existing rules for alcohol and tobacco.
Enable the legal blending and infusion of liquor products in an effort to modernize liquor policies.

The proposed changes would also provide new opportunities within the liquor industry, including ferment-on-premises. This would allow consumers to make their own beer, wine, ciders and coolers within licensed facilities.

“Our government has worked to eliminate unnecessary regulation that negatively impacts our restaurant and bar industry. Ferment-on-premises and blending of liquor products represent common sense changes that open new revenue streams for business and allows Albertans another way to responsibly enjoy themselves.”

Joe Ceci, President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance

“This is something that my customers have been asking for years. I am pleased to see action being taken to allow ferment-on-premises in Alberta. I look forward to expanding my business in the future to offer this service.”

Al Henderson, Creative Connoisseur Inc.

Lloyd Lewis

www.todayville.com

President Todayville Inc., Honorary Colonel 41 Signal Regiment, Board Member Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award Foundation, Director Canadian Forces Liaison Council (Alberta) musician, photographer, former VP/GM CTV Edmonton.

Follow Author

41 Signal Regiment trains for winter survival at CFB Wainwright

Central Alberta / 2 years ago

Local artist records original song for Remembrance Day with video showcasing Red Deer’s military history

Community / 2 years ago

Glenn Anderson adds some colour to the “Day of Golf”

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.