4 ms·

Hang on, I don't think it's true that this had to have provincial agreement for this to happen. The federal government makes criminal law in Canada, not the pro

by hbrav 4y ago

Hang on, I don't think it's true that this had to have provincial agreement for this to happen. The federal government makes criminal law in Canada, not the provinces. But if you're looking to trial this and you have a province that is asking to be allowed to try it, then using the province as the experiment ground is the obvious choice.

momothereal 4y ago
Legally speaking, the federal government can drop all enforcement across the country. Striking those laws would take a parliament vote however. The reason provinces need to agree is because healthcare is under their jurisdiction. Parliament and Health Canada will not impose a drastic shift in drug/addiction management on the provinces without working with their health units. For instance, only the BC government and the Toronto Health Unit have petitioned thus far.
acoard 4y ago
In effect, yes, it does require provincial approval. For one, healthcare is purely the purview of the province. The federal government has no ability to force provinces to treat drug use as a healthcare issue. Secondly, enforcement of laws in BC is a mix of both provincial and federal and this gives the provincial government leeway. In BC, the RCMP is responsible for both provincial and federal enforcement. One of the earlier marijuana legalization efforts in British Columbia, which was supported by mayors and previous provincial ministers, hinged on enforcement. The plan was effectively to order law enforcement to not enforce marijuana laws. The province itself couldn't strike the law, but they could effectively not comply. Admittedly this is a grey area, which theoretically would require the courts to sort out, but in practice it shows some viability of the approach. In general, Canada's governments skews heavily towards provinces rather than federal (unlike the USA which has a very big federal government, most Canadian gov employees are provincial). Provinces have had the upper hand since Confederation and have been unwilling to give up much power. As such, I doubt how much approval the province needs from the federal for an action like this.

by hbrav 4y ago

momothereal 4y ago

Legally speaking, the federal government can drop all enforcement across the country. Striking those laws would take a parliament vote however. The reason provinces need to agree is because healthcare is under their jurisdiction. Parliament and Health Canada will not impose a drastic shift in drug/addiction management on the provinces without working with their health units. For instance, only the BC government and the Toronto Health Unit have petitioned thus far.

acoard 4y ago

In effect, yes, it does require provincial approval. For one, healthcare is purely the purview of the province. The federal government has no ability to force provinces to treat drug use as a healthcare issue. Secondly, enforcement of laws in BC is a mix of both provincial and federal and this gives the provincial government leeway. In BC, the RCMP is responsible for both provincial and federal enforcement. One of the earlier marijuana legalization efforts in British Columbia, which was supported by mayors and previous provincial ministers, hinged on enforcement. The plan was effectively to order law enforcement to not enforce marijuana laws. The province itself couldn't strike the law, but they could effectively not comply. Admittedly this is a grey area, which theoretically would require the courts to sort out, but in practice it shows some viability of the approach. In general, Canada's governments skews heavily towards provinces rather than federal (unlike the USA which has a very big federal government, most Canadian gov employees are provincial). Provinces have had the upper hand since Confederation and have been unwilling to give up much power. As such, I doubt how much approval the province needs from the federal for an action like this.