Pubdate: Sat, 06 Sep 2014
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Page: A4
Copyright: 2014 Postmedia Network Inc.
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: Daphne Bramham

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STIR THE POT

Reefer Madness: Provincial Law Is Toothless When It Comes To
Regulating Wild West Of Medical Marijuana

It is rare that a municipal councillor issues a war call over a
development permit. But that's exactly what Sechelt's Chris Moore did
in late July during a debate over a permit for Medma Cannabis Pharms
Inc., one of three medical marijuana companies looking to set up in
Sechelt.

As council discussed a variance to allow the two-storey, 433-
square-metre production facility, Moore stated: "Frankly, I'll be
extremely disappointed if this is not granted. In fact, it will be a
war call for me."

In an interview this week, Moore insisted that what had stirred his
passion was the process of trying to stop a medical marijuana company
using a development permit.

Had the company planned to grow tomatoes, he said he would be just as
upset. "I've been an advocate for legalization ( of marijuana) for
some time. But, when it comes to voting on Medma), it's not my land
and I don't have any pecuniary interests," Moore said in an interview
this week.

But the councillor is more than just an advocate and proponent of the
small, coastal community becoming a hub for legal pot production.

Moore is a director of Cannabis Ventures Inc., a California-based,
penny-stock company. It is one of more than 1,000 that has applied to
Health Canada for a licence to build a large-scale grow- op.

He is also the sole director of Bounty Development Corp., which owns
the Sechelt property where CVI plans to build.

Moore has never publicly disclosed his corporate interests, although
he says he has told others on council.

His business interests were made public by a couple of citizens who
found the corporate documents on the Internet.

B. C.' s Financial Disclosures Act requires municipal politicians to
file an annual statement in the first two weeks of the year detailing
what they own and earn.

And since Cannabis Ventures Inc. wasn't incorporated until April 2014,
Moore couldn't have disclosed it then.

"I don't know if I have to update ( the annual filing)," he said. "I'm
not aware of any instruction like that. ... I don't recall any need to
do that.

"Most people in small communities know what's going on, so it's self-
policing. They probably know better ... what's going on than in big
cities where people can hide out."

But the Community Charter says that even if councillors and mayors
have not declared a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, they are
forbidden from attending meetings or even parts of meetings where the
matter is discussed and from participating in any discussions or votes
and attempting to influence the voting on the issue.

The penalty "may be" disqualification from office "unless the
contravention was done inadvertently or because of an error in
judgment made in good faith."

That disqualification is only until the next election, which in this
case is November. And Moore is adamant that he is not running again.

The Charter also says a council member "could" be required to give up
any realized financial gain. But that would only happen if 10 electors
or two-thirds of council take it to the B. C. Supreme Court for a ruling.

Since his corporate interests have become public, Moore has vowed not
to vote later this fall on a new zoning bylaw, which would permit
commercial grow-ops in all industrial zones as well as resource and
agricultural zones, and would make Sechelt one of the first B. C.
municipalities to fully embrace medical marijuana production.

Moore won't participate in the public hearings that he has been a
proponent for, even though he said he has recommended to staff some
people who he thinks should be invited to explain the Health Canada
licensing process as well as the benefits of medical marijuana
production to individuals as well as the community. "Frankly, if this
municipality doesn't want medical marijuana, I don't give a shit,"
said Moore. "Although I think it would be unfortunate."

Moore is not the only one on Sechelt's seven-member council with ties
to a medical marijuana company.

Councillor Tom Lamb owns a building currently rented by a company that
operated under the old pot-growing laws that is attempting
certification under the new rules. Lamb declined to name the company.

In an interview on Friday, Lamb said he will be asking for the
district solicitor's opinion on whether he is in a conflict of
interest before he votes on any matters related to marijuana,
including the zoning bylaw.

But Lamb says he has participated in some earlier council discussions,
including a presentation by a representative from a medical marijuana
company - not the one he rents to or Medma - that wants to set up on
Sechelt.

It has all been in an effort to educate himself, he
said.

"The federal government has done a very, very poor job of bringing
this medical marijuana thing to where it is today," Lamb said. "The
new regulations have brought some chaos and I don't understand all of
what's happening, which is why I want to get educated."

The genesis of all of this is Canada's new medical-marijuana
regulations that shut down close to 30,000 small growers and is
replacing them with a few, large grow-ops.

It set off a corporate frenzy, with legitimate companies ( as well as
many penny-stock companies making extravagant claims) attempting to
cash in on what are touted to be heady, windfall returns.

Getting a licence requires companies to prove that they have properly
zoned property somewhere, which is how reefer madness arrived in town
halls across the country and ended up in the laps of people like Moore
and Lamb.

But what's troubling to residents in Sechelt and elsewhere is the
double secrecy surrounding medical marijuana.

First, the federal government refuses to disclose all of the names of
companies that have received medical marijuana licences and refuses to
release the names of those that are seeking approval, citing privacy
legislation.

Secondly, provincial law doesn't require transparency when it comes to
corporate disclosures. Instead of depending on self-disclosure at
meetings, it ought to require municipal officials and employees to not
only make annual declarations of assets, interests and income, but do
so whenever there is a change.

What's ironic is that because governments make it so difficult to
figure out who is doing what where and, possibly, for whom, citizens'
best source of information is the same stock touts. And they are the
only people that the government has seen fit to warn citizens about. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D