A public meeting was held on February 25, 2020 in Schreiber to present an amendment to a zoning by law with respect to Canada Bill C-45: an act respecting cannabis. The bylaw proposed to “prohibit the production of cannabis anywhere in Schreiber Township except by Zoning by-law amendment.”

On reading the proposal, the intention of the amendment drew a lot of questions and concerns. Schreiber had earlier opted in to allow for the growing of cannabis within the township in accordance with provincial legislation. It is widely understood that the growing of marijuana for personal consumption is now a right enjoyed by all citizens of Ontario and indeed the entire country. Yet here is a document that on the surface proposes to remove that right. Questions arose as to the legality of such a bylaw. What did the township hope to achieve by amending the zoning bylaw already in place? 

Schreiber Media Centre was scheduled to attend and cover the events of that night. A group of citizens lined up outside the council chambers waiting to hear from council and voice their concerns. During the introduction, it was made clear that the amendment was intended to address the issues of commercial production of cannabis. However, tempers flared as members of the community voiced concerns over their rights as citizens and property owners. Would fines be imposed if one were not to comply? Would property be seized if a felony was committed? In a small town like Schreiber, who would be enforcing such regulations?

An underlying issue of no confidence in the current council was brought forward. At one point the mayor threatened to close down the meeting. The mayor and council could not seem to understand the reaction to what they believed was a straight forward issue with a zoning bylaw. The intention of the amendment was to prohibit the “commercial” production of cannabis within the residential areas of the township and prevent industrial growing on any private lands.

This was still a concern for some as the growing of plants for personal medical use with a permit allows for the possibility of owning more than four plants. There is also a very grey area in regards to the legality of allowing a person to grow medical marijuana on someone else's land in the case where you might not be able to physically perform the actually growing yourself. Nowhere on the original notice did the municipality mention anything about commercial production. 

There is a lesson here on how municipalities need to be more accountable to its citizens. The wording of the notice implies that the growing of cannabis is not allowed in any area. Perhaps, as suggested by one of the citizens, it should instead read that the growing of cannabis is allowed in selected areas. Words can have a powerful impact!