Summary#
The Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act would amend Manitoba’s Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act. It would remove text from one existing rule and add a power to make regulations (detailed rules under an Act) about minimum staffing at cannabis stores. The bill does not state a goal.
- It deletes everything after the words “prohibited from entering” in item 2 of subsection 101.4(3). Without the current Act, the practical effect of that deletion cannot be verified.
- It adds authority for regulations to set a minimum number of staff at cannabis stores, including minimums during specified store hours.
- The bill does not set any staffing numbers itself. It does not require regulations to be made.
- The bill says it would come into force on royal assent.
What it means for you#
- Cannabis store operators: The bill itself does not require a particular number of staff. If regulations set minimums, stores would have to meet them; the bill does not say what those minimums would be.
- Customers and the public: The change to the rule about people “prohibited from entering” could affect who is subject to that rule, but the supplied text does not show how.
- Government: The bill adds authority to set staffing minimums by regulation. It does not create a new agency or a process for applications, decisions or appeals.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not specify public spending or give a cost estimate.
- If regulations set staffing minimums, affected stores may face staffing costs. The bill does not say what those costs would be.
What is unclear#
- The current Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act was not supplied, so the full existing entry rule and the effect of deleting text from it could not be verified.
- The bill does not identify in the supplied text who would make the regulations.
- It does not set staffing numbers, define how staff would be counted, or say which hours could have separate minimums.
- It does not set a deadline for regulations or explain how compliance would be checked.
- The bill text’s “Assented to” date is blank, so the available material does not confirm whether it has received royal assent.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that minimum staffing rules could set a clear floor for staffing at cannabis stores.
- The authority to set different minimums during specified hours could allow rules to reflect different operating periods.
- The bill leaves the actual numbers to regulations rather than putting fixed staffing levels in the Act.
Case against#
- The bill does not explain why staffing minimums are needed or what problem they are meant to address.
- It gives authority to set minimums but does not state their level, scope or cost. Those details would determine the practical burden on stores.
- The deletion to the entry rule cannot be judged from the supplied text alone; its effect on people subject to that rule is unclear.