GREY:CNTTQ - Post by User
Comment by
pulverizeron Aug 15, 2019 2:49am
41 Views
Post# 30030308
RE:RE:RE:RE:Johndoe
RE:RE:RE:RE:Johndoe A fair assessment and each case is unique of course. CannTrust does have several minor and medium infractions found here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/compliance-enforcement/medical-cannabis-quarterly-compliance-enforcement-report-inspection-data-summary.html?fbclid=IwAR247RXYPWv7E6BwM2ypZTmFNn7sZfOWXOSYCG0kE9mGlZtHLAW4e80dWi4
I can't speak for Todd Cain at Health Canada but I can speculate like we all are. Obviously in a few weeks we will have an answer.
But the damning evidence of a culture of diviation and deliberate attempts to decieve Health Canada is beyond giving a finger wagging.
In Ascent's case, they got their cultivation licence in November of 2017 and in less than a month they were warned to stop doing what they were doing.
They had tried to juggle both MMAR and ACMPR on the same property by claiming their MMAR was for the rooms that didn't have ACMPR.
Don't forget that C45, which came into force as of October 17th is now the governing regulations.
So some of the parallels I draw from are the fact that Health Canada visited CannTrust for quite some time
and then it took CannTrust 2 weeks to admit that not only was Health Canada there, but that:
a) they quarantine 5000kg
b) they have a report due in 2 more weeks.
c) they "volunteered" to stop selling and "volunteered" more product for observation.
I don't believe "C". I also believe CannTrust cannot clone. I believe they are in fact "partially suspended" as we speak.
Otherwise they actually would be selling while this investigation is ongoing.
Also Health Canada wouldn't have taken action A & B without finding significant evidence as it is. I know that
several departments were involved with this scandal to pull it off and by now CannTrust should have admitted to
firing dozens of employees to demonstrate coming into compliance. If you look at previous infractions they have at east
3 infractions that show lack of due process.
I might add that a significant parallel is that report owed to HC which wasn't told to the public until half way until
it was due. This "report" is in fact an appeal. It's not an actual report. There would be no need for a press release on
filing a simple report about something minor. It is in my opinion this "report" is an appeal to a decision that has
almost been made. And the only reason HC is even asking for a report is because legally they have too. But that report will
most likely not sway opinions that have already been made.
I also know that if CannTrust is only given a fine that other LP's waiting on expansion can just go ahead instead of due process.
Think about HUGE. They want 12 million square feet of growing capacity but only have a small footprint licenced right now. So why not
just do it anyways if the risk is only a $1mil fine?
Also. By reading the regulations. Growing in unlicenced areas is the full brunt of the law and still maintains up to 14yrs in jail if
we were to grow in our house. CannTrust grew in 5x 50,000sqft rooms = 250,000sqft.
So I'm pretty confident that:
a) they are already partically suspended and continue to lie to shareholders
b) that they will be fully suspended in short order
We have a federal election looming, JT just got slammed by the ethics committee on SNC. So now his
legalization experiment is seen as soft of licencing deviations? Hard pill to swallow.
I've met Todd Cain, the guy who will write the final report. His very words were "we do not like surprises". This
was at a micro-grow event where they were educating micro growers on the process of transitioning. They were
warning MMAR growers that plants seen onsite at MMAR locations trying to be converted into micro licences
will pose challenges in the process even if they hold an MMAR licence for that location. So I don't see how
they can be so hard on a 2000sqft micro grower if a mega grower blatenly disresepcts the law.
But time will tell. Thanks for a civil response with a fair assessment of an opinion. It is a fair inqury.