Connect with us

News

Province to modernize Gaming and Liquor Act prior to cannabis legalization

Published

4 minute read

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.

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

International

UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female

Published on

Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, directors of ‘For Women Scotland’ cheer as they leave the Supreme Court on April 16, 2025, in London, England after winning their appeal in defense of biological reality

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent

The U.K. Supreme Court has issued a ruling stating that “woman” in law refers to a biological female, and that transgender “women” are not female in the eyes of the law.

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled today that legally transgender “women” are not women, since a woman is legally defined by “biological sex.”

Published April 16, the Supreme Court’s 88-page verdict was handed down on the case of Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v. The Scottish Ministers (Respondent). The ruling marks the end of a battle of many years between the Scottish government and women’s right campaigners who sought to oppose the government’s promotion of transgender ideology.

In 2018, the Scottish government issued a decision to allow the definition of “woman” to include men who assume their gender to be female, opening the door to allowing so-called “transgender” individuals to identify as women.

This guidance was challenged by women’s rights campaigners, arguing that a woman should be defined in line with biological sex, and in 2022 the Scottish government was forced to change its definition after the court found that such a move was outside the government’s “legislative competence.”

Given this, the government issued new guidance which sought to cover both aspects: saying that biological women are women, but also that men with a “gender recognition certificate” (GRC) are also considered women. A GRC is given to people who identify as the opposite sex and who have had medical or surgical interventions in an attempt to “reassign” their gender.

Women Scotland Ltd appealed this new guidance. At first it was rejected by inner courts, but upon their taking the matter to the Supreme Court in March last year, the nation’s highest judicial body took up the case.

Today, with the ruling issued against transgender ideology, women’s campaigners are welcoming the news as a win for women’s safety.

“A thing of beauty,” praised Lois McLatchie Miller from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group.

“Victory,” commented Charlie Bently-Astor, a prominent campaigner for biological reality against the transgender movement, after she nearly underwent surgical transition herself at a younger age.

“After 15 years of insanity, the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled that men who say they are ‘trans women’ are not women,” wrote leader of the Christian political movement David Kurten.

Leader of the Conservative Party – the opposition to the current Labour government – Kemi Badenoch welcomed the court’s ruling, writing that “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either.”

 

Others lamented the fact that the debate even was taking place, let alone having gone to the Supreme Court.

“What a parody we live in,” commented Reform Party candidate Joseph Robertson.

Rupert Lowe MP – who has risen to new prominence in recent weeks for his outspoken condemnation of the immigration and rape gang crisis – wrote, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is – it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.”

However, the Supreme Court did not wish to get pulled into siding with certain arguments, with Lord Hodge of the tribunal stating that “we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”

The debate has taken center stage in the U.K. in recent years, not least for the role played by the current Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer himself has become notorious throughout the nation for his contradictions and inability to answer the question of what a woman is, having flip-flopped on saying that a woman can have a penis, due to his support for the transgender movement.

At the time of going to press, neither Starmer nor his deputy Angela Rayner issued a statement about the Supreme Court ruling. There has been no statement issued from the Scottish government either, nor from the office of the first minister.

Transgender activists have expectedly condemned the ruling as “a disgusting attack on trans rights.” One leading transgender campaigner individual told Sky News, “I am gutted to see the judgement from the Supreme Court which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a GRC are able to be, for all intents and purposes, legally recognized as our true genders.”

Continue Reading

International

Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump she has ‘evidence’ voting machines are ‘vulnerable to hackers’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing federal election-related funds to be conditioned on states “complying with the integrity measures set forth by Federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that will now require proof of citizenship.”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced during a Cabinet meeting last week at the White House that voting machines across the U.S. are not secure.

“We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time, and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast,” she said about a half hour into the meeting.

 

Gabbard’s remarks confirm what millions of Americans have long suspected about elections across the U.S.

President Donald Trump himself has maintained skepticism of current voting methods and has called for paper ballots to prevent cheating.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell was one of only a few voices to publicly argue that voting machines, like those run by Dominion and Smartmatic which were used during the 2020 presidential election, were compromised. GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene took to X to praise the businessman after Gabbard made her remarks.

“Mike Lindell along with MANY others vindicated!!” she exclaimed on X. “Another conspiracy theory being proven right! Guess what Democrats already knew this and publicly talked about it in 2019! And then lied and lied and lied!!!”

 

Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing federal election-related funds to be conditioned on states “complying with the integrity measures set forth by Federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that will now require proof of citizenship.”

Congress has also taken steps to ensure election integrity by voting on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (also known as the SAVE Act) last week. Dubbed “controversial” by the media and left-wing groups, the common sense bill would require persons to show proof of citizenship before voting. The House approved the measure 220-208 with four Democrats in support. The bill now heads to the Senate where it will face an uphill battle for the required 60 votes. Republicans currently have a 53 seat majority.

Continue Reading

Trending

X