 When she's available, can everyone see this PowerPoint presentation that's on the screen? Gina, I'm just going to start the recording. Yes, Jack Perry, ready? Can you hear me? You're good to go. It is a whole way to make good time to change people's lives. I always have to start like that, Jack Perry. Jack Perry, that's correct. Welcome from Montmont to another episode of the Canada Subcommittee. So today's October the 25th, 2021. We'll start by taking attendance from the subcommittee. Robert Hachin. President. Ashley Reynolds. President. Leo Thompson. Erin. Okay, and then in the NAACP, Gina Cranley. President. And then for the room, can you tell us who's there? Yeah, it's just me from the board, Julie Holbert, and one member of the public. So for the next topic, we have received unfortunately no public comments for this installment. So for anybody in the Vermont citizenry who's following along, please feel free to offer your perspectives and thoughts at this rate that's posted here on the slide. And then we will also move to, we need to approve the minutes for the last meeting. So, man, please have a motion to approve the minutes. Motion. All right, thank you. Any second? Excellent. Okay. Previous meetings minutes have been approved. I'll turn it over to Gina. Thank you. Hi everyone, happy diversity, equity, inclusion program later on today. I'm hoping to wrap this up at the end of the week and do our start of our finishing our phase one and then on to phase two, which is where we come to a town near you and get public comments and how social equity candidates would like to see these programs run. And we'll be able to hear your story and be part of the cold design of this. And then phase three, everything goes to Vermont cannabis control board to finalize what they do would be the best for the social equity programs. So I, it was a little hard to find some information about who should be a disproportionately impacted community. I know what the basis that we made was based on who are social equity candidates. So, you know, high market areas and large areas of incarceration due to the war on drugs. Some of the information that I found is sort of like health rankings and, you know, traffic stops. So here's some information about traffic stops. This is a number of traffic stops. So, you know, in towns that are going to have more people in, of course, those numbers will sort of be increased. This was for 2020. So I'm not really sure if that's really a good example of information or data that we want to use. And then we also had from 2019, sort of the county health rankings. So, you know, the green box is indicating the health outcomes and the blue box are some different health factors. Now, the lower numbers indicate better performances. So, you know, Bennington has a 12 and, you know, health outcomes and health factors, which would kind of put it on a really high level of, you know, health risk. And people not necessarily, you know, having more health issues in those counties where Edison is, you know, two and two. So they're doing pretty well. This is just some information of some data that I was able to pull off. I know we have also sent this around to some different departments in Vermont to try to get these issues. But I know we've spoken about this last week, and it really sounded like from everyone's perspective on the subcommittee that these certainly were counties to include in disproportionately impacted communities. So I'm going to start with, what are your thoughts about this? So, I mean, broadly speaking, my thoughts remain the same. I think I brought it up last time, you know, when I look at this list and, you know, when I was thinking of towns that might have been disproportionately impacted. You know, my first thought was the war on drugs and communities that would be overpoliced. And, you know, the first community that came to mind was Rutland followed by Bennington. I know Brattleboro is up there as well. And then you have Burlington, which has the highest concentration of BIPOC people in Vermont. So when I was thinking of disproportionately impacted, my mind was focused on war on drugs. I know there are other factors that we're going to come up, such as health and economic factors as well. What was that last county that you mentioned? I think it was Burlington, I mentioned, that has the highest concentration of BIPOC. Which all of those counties we have are there? Are there any counties that we have here that you might want us to take off to make us add? Nothing was coming to mind at the moment. I think it looks good. I don't know a lot about it, but, yeah. Thank you. Cool, Leo. Yeah. Thank you. Any ones that you think we should add or do you think this list consists of the major ones that we want to focus on? As far as I know, these would be the main ones. Thank you. And, Ashley, your thoughts? I agree that these are the ones that I would expect and I think these are the ones that we should concentrate on. Thank you so much. So one of the things that I did want to state was that these impacted communities are the ones that we always concentrate on. That they do not change annually because these are the ones that were impacted on the war on drugs. And these are the ones who sustain the harm. And we don't want to constantly be changing that just because an area has more of a BIPOC community. We know they will shift and change, but this is about time that should be addressed in another way. But we have seen in the last few years as the test in handling the war on drugs. We're not just capping this and saying that these were not shifting or changing anything annually about these communities. That these are communities where the harm was done and we're not fluctuating and changing anything every year. Quite sure how I feel about that. I mean, if we're talking about decades of police work and how long the war on drugs has lasted, then I can see how that makes sense. I mean, there's always new data and information coming out of different areas that might be over-policed. For example, I think it was just last year that the report came out that Brattleboro had the highest number of bias-related incidents in terms of traffic stops. So I'm not sure how I feel about making it set in concrete that this list will never change. So my thoughts on this is that this is past harm that has occurred, not future harm. I mean, with the legislation that's put into control where this is now legalized, all of the harm occurred when it was not legalized. And that's what we're trying to focus on, which is why I'm trying to say that don't revisit or change these counties every year. Think these communities stay because that's where the harm was previously done before cannabis was legalized. Yeah, I do think that makes sense, but I do also think that there will be legislators who want to know what sort of metrics we use to pick these counties. Because I know everyone, it seems like everyone generally agrees that these are the areas, but I think there will be people who want to know how we came about choosing these areas beyond just anecdotes that places like Brattleboro were over-policed. No, very good. And I definitely work with Susanna's office, Davis's office. I wish she was on the call now. She also recommended very similar to this to us. So, Ashley, what are your thoughts? I'm currently here, where Natter's coming from, and I do think that's from what I've seen in the existing industry out west and otherwise where things are illegal. It doesn't mean that criminal activity is just completely eradicated as a result of the legalization, so I do really sympathize to Natter's point. However, I don't know what we have to reevaluate this, let's say, every two years, every three years, every five years. Hopefully we see some of these counties are off the board, but there could be some that are added as a result. So, I don't know that... I feel like maybe we are kind of over-complicating this a little bit because we want to do the most good in the places where there's the most harm. So, I think for the purpose of getting this program off the ground, I think it's focusing on past harm. Thank you, Ashley. And Julio? Up on the screen are consistent with kind of longer term issues in a criminal justice system, not just something, you know, like it's an issue just one year. I think there are these are areas that also have, as you pointed out, other risks that are associated with them that are reflected in health outcomes and so forth. So, I don't... there's nothing here that you have here that strikes me as like inappropriate or something that haven't had long term issues to deal with particularly, you know, the high tide of war on drugs in Vermont and in Nashville. And are you okay with keeping this as fixed communities and not changing them every year? No, I think if you're talking about forward, I think the question will be, you know, it sort of depends how forward we are because when we look at outcomes that we want to see in these, you know, these communities, we don't want these to be viewed in the same light as they were in the past. And so I think that it's a good idea going forward to have, you know, an evaluation or evaluation. But I think of your, you know, if the time period that you're looking at is like the pre-legalization period or the pre... maybe decriminalization might be a better period to start looking at. I think their past is going to change. But I think they're, you know, hopefully, you know, their president and their future are going to change. So that was... I think that's sort of what I heard, not our saying, and I would agree with that. Thank you. Yeah. So I don't mind if it wants to be a revisit where in the future maybe counties come off. I just don't want to add any more on if there was no harm that we have found in between from these counties that may be determined by the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Well, if I could just follow up, then if you're talking about adding other communities, I mean, in the last meeting we had, we mentioned two communities that are on this screen. I mean, I risked a question as to whether Berry City might have outcomes where there was heavily, you know, disproportionate impact. And I think Suzana raised Paterson County where there is a... It's known to have a large migrant farmer or migrant farm worker in an English might have its own challenges historically with law enforcement. So those two, you know, we're not, have not been headed to the list. Well, are those counties that you want us to look into, would you like us to add those counties? You know, I think that, yes, I think we ought to look into them. I think Suzana made a good point. I think when we are looking at negative interactions with law enforcement, you have to look at communities that come up against that system for a variety of reasons. And so that could be poverty, that could be a history or a reputation, or new Vermonters who come in and, you know, over, you know, historically might have had, you know, not as positive interactions with law enforcement might not be as welcoming in some communities, at least historically. I think recent history is different, but if you're looking at the longer term, the longer backwards look, I think, than Addison and Addison County, I would feel more confident about because I know more about that, the migrant community there. The berry would be something that I would just want folks to take a look at. It's not, it's nothing disparaging about Berry City, but it is just one that has had a lot of policing in the past, and it might be that they would fall within the criteria you want to look at. Yeah, we were not looking at low income, as that was not one of the social equity criteria. But when we were saying it was largely policed, and I know that you work in that sector for quite a long time, what are your thoughts on that? Let's just knock on my door a second ago, so I have to step away, can you please repeat the question? Julio indicated that Berry was highly policed over the past few decades, thoughts on that, and adding them to the disproportionately impacted community. Yeah, so I'm not super familiar with Berry. If there's a belief that Berry was overpoliced, then I support adding it to this. Susanna, hi. So there are two people who joined us just a moment ago, so it was Lindsay and Susanna. Please add that to the minutes. Also, Susanna, I know that you've helped us a lot with these disproportionately impacted communities, and your office deals with that quite often. What are your thoughts about Berry and Addison being added as disproportionately impacted communities? One of the things that we wanted to do with disproportionately impacted communities are that these were the ones that were hogged by drugs, whether they be BIPOC or high arrest areas due to cannabis, and that we were not going to change these communities going forward because these communities based on past harm, not on future harm. So Susanna, what are your thoughts on Berry and Addison? Yeah, I would agree with adding them to the totality. First of all, sorry for being late. Also, I think that being underrepresented in all of the Berry's factors that may be underrepresented in business and in other factors, then you're going to see Berry popping up anyway. There's a lot of economic issues. There's a lot of health disparities. There's a lot of housing issues. So Berry is an interesting example of a place that we care about in this program. The data show in terms of war on drugs specifically for Berry added in. Addison living in that area are often sort of under the radar because there is a struggle with immigration. And so I think that that would be too great. Also, on the question of past harm versus future harm, I do think that it should probably be a combination. I mean, I know that this program is designed to rectify historical injustice. And so I think that our focus on past harm is important and yet the system continues to cause harm for people and it tends to be the same groups. So as that, I think that I would like to see a program that stays in full and that recognizes, hey, you know what? We're seeing a lot of inequities. A couple of years passed and we're seeing more patterns that are showing that there's inequities we may want to reconsider. Or like one of these disproportionate impact communities might come off the list because I don't know. I'm stopped talking, but those are two of my thoughts. Thank you. Thanks, Susan. I appreciate those thoughts. And I agree, you know, maybe we have a community that's no longer disproportionately impacted. But if there's new harm that's occurring, I think, you know, we need to really focus on, you know, especially now what the past harm has occurred before legalization. So, you know, from this, you know, we're basically saying we kind of got it wrong that this joke should not have been barred. And then people were still trying to do a consumer for whatever purpose it was. And if people are doing things legally with the drug after it is legalized, that are different issues to the past injustice of it. But I do understand wanting to help us as many people as possible. Lindsay, I hear that you added a comment and I would love your thoughts on, you know, disproportionately impacted communities. Then just to give you some background is that we're trying to focus on communities that have been harmed due to the war on cannabis. And we have determined a social equity candidate is a BIPOC community member and or an area for, excuse me for a minute, someone who was incarcerated or arrested due to cannabis. So we're trying to look into areas where there were like high rates of incarceration due to cannabis and or large population of BIPOC. I can't specifically speak to either of those, but earlier in the conversation, I'm not sure who spoke just a couple of courses on it, but talked a little bit about like the reputation and sort of people treating a community simply because of the reputation. And I think that very city definitely struggles with reputation of what's going on on the streets. And I think that sounded the alarm back in September saying, you know, there's a, there's a large, let me say it, large, a larger batch of illegal drugs here. So again, I don't I don't know specific drugs that he was talking about. I guess I just more was reacting to having grown up in central Vermont. I wouldn't look into. So I don't have. Okay, great. So maybe some of the recommendations in our discussion that we would include Barry and Addison to this chart. And obviously these are just recommendations for the cannabis control board and they make their final deliberations of exactly which communities. It seems like we should not make a determination if this is just pass on or future harm to communities and allow the Vermont Cannabis Control Board to determine if it is just going to make sure that these communities had to have harm before the war on cannabis or after if there are still some activities within communities that are still being harmed by cannabis. And we're going to look for future communities in a year or or revising from these communities are every year. So another with the addition of Addison and Barry, do you approve these recommendations of disproportionately impacted communities to the Vermont Cannabis Control Board? Yes. Thank you. Julia. Yes. And Ashley. Okay. Thank you. So please stay for the record that the two members of the social equity subcommittee were still on the call have voted yes to those additions of disproportionately impacted communities and the current ones that we have on the screen. So is before we get off the social equity program is there anything that anyone would like to add that may not have discussed or would like to discuss that should be included in social equity. Now over the past seven weeks we have discussed lots and lots and lots of stuff about it and I will send you over a report later this week for you just to sort of have a summary of all of the recommendations that we've made in case there is something before our last meeting that you guys would want to add but is there anything that you would like to add or discuss right now before we move on to diversity equity and inclusion programs. No, no. Okay, well please think about it in the next few days so that we can have our final recommendations forwarded to the Cannabis Control Board but celebrate we are done with social equity programs for the moment. That was an intense like seven and a half weeks right now. So congratulations and I think you're made some incredible recommendations and certainly will help to shape the lives of other people. So now let's move on to some other ones we're going to talk about our diversity equity and inclusion program. You know, as we stated, the social equity program was about people who sustained harm due to the prohibition of cannabis and their diversity equity inclusion is about making sure that historically underrepresented groups and society included in the new industries that Ramon creates. So that is what the purpose of this program is to encourage historically underrepresented groups and also to ensure a diverse and inclusive cannabis industry, which is really so, so very important. So we got on to our next question. What groups shouldn't be included? You know, what are some groups that have been underrepresented now we've spoken about women, you know, people with disabilities. I know LDP, TQ, Julio, what are your thoughts about some groups that should be included in this program? For me, the place that I would look at would be Vermont's laws that offer protections for groups that have been either historically persecuted or marginalized. So statutes like the Vermont Public Accommodations or Fair Housing Act, Vermont's Fair Plugment Practices Act, or the Hate Crimes Laws, because I think when you're looking at people who have a legacy of, let's put it mildly, challenges with pursuing their rights in the state. You're also talking about immigrant communities. You're talking about people who, for whom English is not their first or primary language. You're talking about religious groups and, you know, you're talking about people of color. So when you look at political representation and participation and government, you're talking about those same groups again. It's not just a phenomenon in one part of our life. It seems to be a problem in all of our parts of our life in Vermont. So what are some groups that you're thinking about? I think I'm just matching up and I'll match them again. So people who are part of the immigrant. You know, folks who have faced discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or religion, I think are people who, you know, if they have that story to tell, that should be part of the, you know, the eligibility. I share the same opinion as Julio. My first thought to add to this would be immigrants and refugees. So I would be in support of adding that group. So it's about the groups that are here. Women, people with disability, LGBTQ. I'm satisfied with the way the list looks right now. I'm trying to think of any other groups that right now the only ones that are coming to mind are immigrants and refugees. With anything else pops up, I'll make sure to add it. Thank you. Susanna? I'm comfortable with that list also. And I hear Julio perhaps looking at what are the different categories overall. Let's hear those. Lindsay, your thoughts? I'm mature. So Julio, I just want to make sure that I got the additions that you would like to see on the list as immigrants. We got refugees, more specifically, from Nader. And then anyone who has faced discrimination based on race, color, or religion. I think that many of these people on a color at least will be in the social equity program. So maybe I'll be just indicated as a religion. Or are there some other discriminations that you would like to include? Yeah, I just want to point out in this maybe something that at least for folks who aren't from Vermont. Vermont's was specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of color. And it's not just race. So that's why. And so it could be that if you're looking at social equity aspect of it and you are including race, then you should have color associated with that because that's specifically protected in all the laws that I mentioned before. But if that is already if race and color is handled in the other category, then I would just say discriminated on the basis of religion. You know, from our at least the information we receive in terms of biases and ends or hate crimes or discrimination that occurs in the state. So after you get really the largest group is folks who are being mistreated on the basis of their race or color. Right after that is religion and national origin. So I think immigrants are more than just refugees as immigrants would include refugees certainly, but it's not limited to them. And I think that would probably also capture the subs that I mentioned with your people. English is not their primary language, but that's likely to be the class of immigrants as well. So English is not their primary language. So I have the three additional bullet points to glue in people with disabilities, LGBTQ, as immigrants or English or people whose English is not their primary language. So I would say maybe English is their second language. The concern is the people who may have lived in Vermont their entire lives, but their whole language was maybe something else than English. But they grew up speaking English in schools throughout their entire lives. So it might not be their primary language, but I just don't want to overlap and have people who maybe the program isn't for. Who are you? Do you understand what I mean by that? I apologize, I just stepped away for a moment to answer another call. I think you were talking about basically immigrant families here and their language proficiency here. Yeah, so we could have someone who has English as their second language, but has gone through all of their schooling and was born in Vermont. But the first language that they learned at home was the native tongue of their parents. So, you know, English would be their second language, but in hindsight, you know, English may be their most dominant language as well. So are you okay with just including immigrants so that we don't fall into another category trying to really figure out... Yes, I think that's what I was driving as I think immigrant would cover that, although I would say immigrant families. So you may be a Vermont-born child of someone who is a new American and growing up in a household where the primary language isn't English. The sad truth is that the very difficulty with speaking English or speaking even with a heavy non-American accent creates problems for people. Even if they are native from Monterres or born here in the U.S., they are often mistaken for people who aren't born here. Or, you know, where are you from? Well, you know, I'm from Monterres, that's where I was born. Nowhere are you really from. It's the sort of treatment that they can get starting out from primary education through employment and public life. So that's really, I think, if you're talking about part of that immigrant family, that first-generation household, that's what I would encompass. Or that I would address here. So I think immigrant household would encompass that. Because we see those cases and it's not just people, unfortunately, are not as welcoming when they perceive someone as being different. Thank you for that, Julio. Unfortunately, I don't think it stems just from someone who has first-generation. You know, I'm a fifth-generation New Yorker and I still get to this day, you know, where are you really from? No, I'm from New York. Where is your family from? From New York. So, you know, I think, unfortunately, it can last quite a long time, especially if you may look colored, even though I come from such a diverse city myself. So I definitely do understand that. Julio, what are your thoughts about choosing an immigrant or saying immigrant household? But I think we may have to link to maybe first-generation because, you know, some immigrant household may have multiple generational options. I'm going to take the broader approach and, you know, part of an immigrant household where you have, you know, you have a blood relative in the family who's living in your household. Whether that's your uncle or your aunt or your grandparents, slowly with your parents. Because I just think that Vermont historically is very protective and takes a very hard stand in the law on people who are perceived as not being from Vermont. So immigrant household, I think, is kind of a category that you sometimes see in the American survey from the Census Bureau, which is a recognition that you have those households. So that's what I really meant. I think household is a way to deal with that because you're right. People do have extended families, especially when they're trying to get on their feet and find a place in the community and the economy. I would just add, parenthetically, about the comment about New York. Vermont is one of the few states, maybe it might even now be the second state that prohibits discrimination on place of birth. So it's illegal of Vermont to discriminate and employment against somebody because they're viewed as a New Yorker or they're from the South. And that is a product of, I think, a historical recognition that what some of my Vermont born relatives, I wasn't born in Vermont. Some of my Vermont born relatives would call flatlanders. I have people who are not viewed as part of the home-spot culture of my legislature. I think a long time ago, very wisely recognized that people who are new to the state might face hostilities or challenges as well. I think that's a little, as a practical matter, I think that's very hard to apply and practice in this context. But I just wanted to throw that out because it's a very fair point and it is something that we do encounter. And it's not just New York that is sometimes allied with suspicion. Yeah, I mean, I'm just showcasing New York because it is one of the most diversities in the world. And so, unfortunately, you know, this is an occurrence just as human nature, almost. But yes, I agree with you about immigrants. One of the things that we don't want to include everything that is necessarily protected, like, you know, oh, if you come from another state, you know, we want to try to make, promote and encourage people to be included in this new industry. Julio, what are your thoughts about saying immigrants or immigrant household? I would go with immigrant household. Thank you, Julio. Not are your thoughts. I think that sounds good. You know, I'm wondering if though if that might create any confusion, you know, somebody is a first generation American or first generation promoter, and the description is immigrant household, might they think that it's only referring to their parents or relatives, Julio, should we add a note that includes that if you're a first generation American, you're covered in this? How would you like to see it? Do you want it to say immigrant? Do you want it to say immigrant and first generation American or immigrant household? I think having immigrant household, including first generation or Americans, I think would provide the more clarity for some of them. Not for a potential bad kid is looking at it. Okay, so I will have it as immigrants or current member of an immigrant household or a first generation American, because I want us to be very careful of saying first generation household, because that could include their children, that may mean now second generation. Yeah. Okay, great. Suzanne, are there your thoughts? Just putting in a note that clarifies what we mean when we say household or first generation household. I'm sorry if I missed this earlier, if it was already said, but does the person have to be first generation just by the age of one parent? Of course. Good question. Well, I might consider that to be both. The framework that I agree to all of this is to think about groups that historically encounter unfair challenges and discrimination and parents and immigrant. They come here, they meet someone, they fall in love, they raise a family here. I mean, it is just the fact that their children can bear the brunt of discrimination just by their association with them. So I just, I wouldn't stench you with the way that you're drawing the line, because I think that experience shows that they can have a very, very different life here than maybe their classmates or their peers in the workplace. And Vermont has recognized that and in a variety of laws, legislatively, because there's been a history of problems. So I would say one parent's line. However, they wouldn't necessarily be considered first generation if one of their parents was considered to be in America for several generations. And may not face the same issues. But would they still be considered a member of an immigrant household if their mother or father was an immigrant? I think that's what we're trying to figure out right now. I'm going to let you guys think for a few minutes because we need to pause to have public comments and we will come back to this. There's no public comments today, Gina. Okay, thank you. So, Susanna, your thoughts on what should it be one family household to one member or both? Yeah, I think that one is enough. And also, whether you count as first generation, one of your parents is the previous generation of American. I think that makes you not first generation. However, the lineage that you have with one of your parents being an immigrant does create a potential for you to experience negative outcomes. So you may not qualify as first generation, but you would be part of an immigrant household. And gosh, I was going to say something. Oh, I was going to say, you know, I mean the federal government, for example, during the CARES Act, stimulus payments excluded an entire household of people from payment. And one person didn't have legal immigration status here. So, you know, that's one of the things where our very government was creating harm for people, even if they were born here. Just if they lived in someone who wasn't. I would feel strongly that we would take the same tack and say, you have one member of your household. That has historically been something that could jeopardize the whole household. So, you know. Can we say parental figure, maybe? Because if they have an aunt or uncle who lives in their household, it was an immigrant level. How do you feel about that? It's a family that's going to be put together. Yeah. I think that I understand that people can be raised by different family members or have a couple of generations in the household. So, I, you know, I'm not favoring the more inclusive result. And I think if there is, you know, a suspicion by the board that someone is trying to gain the system by saying, you know, saying, well, I have someone emigrated to Vermont from Cincinnati, you know, and then that's not really the spirit or the eligible. When you're keying it back at eligibility, that should be something that would be subject to review. People aren't going to have to make truthful representations. And so I'm not, I'm not to worry about people squeaking by or trying to take advantage of these benefits because it was really their older cousin who was only a few years older than them was really the person who was in the household. Well, the parents were trying to make a life for the family temporarily, you know, looking for work away from their household. So, yeah, I'm just not more comfortable. That's why I'm comfortable with the immigrant household where you're talking about the family, you know, that's the unit I would be using. How about immigrant or have a definition of a family number? So that would be a parent or upbringing or et cetera, instead of saying household because then there would mean obviously clarity of that. And then a first generation American would then or considers or some side of that is first generation would then include if their parent was an immigrant et cetera. So I think that's fair. Or if someone was a stepchild or grew up with someone who was an immigrant as well. So we already have that definition of family, not how are you with going with immigrant or current member of an immigrant family, or member of an immigrant family, which we already have that definition of an immigrant which is why I didn't. I think that's what. Okay. Let us vote on this. So what groups should be included a woman and people with disabilities, LGBTQ community. Immigrant or current member of an immigrant family, a refugee or someone who's face discrimination based on race, color or religion. I'm going to leave color or race in there just in case it is not covered for some reason, because, you know, they face some sort of discrimination that does not was not incorporated by social equity program. Yes. Thank you. And Leo. Yes. Thank you for the record. There are two guesses for the groups that should be included and we will be using the definition of our current family that we have on record for the number of other families for immigrants. So, the last thing that we have to go through are what some of the benefits that these groups should receive. Now, this is just to encourage them to be in the cannabis industry. Now, we are not focusing, we're not saying that any harm was done to, due to the prohibition of cannabis. Some of the benefits that we have down and you have spoken about our educational programs like certificate programs if they're created workshops that are created, you know, so our online or in person educational programs. Priority processing and then a suggestion about an application being waiver to try to include and suggested that they may want to be more encouraged to come into the industry. And I'm just going to leave it right there and pause because we only have one minute left of this call. So just things for you to consider. You know, what benefits do you like on here and what you may dislike? What would you like to add? And that is where we will start off with on Thursday. Is there anything else that you may want to discuss for diversity, equity and inclusion program that other than benefits? Is there anything that you'd like to talk about this committee to discuss? Nothing's jumping to mind right now, but if anything comes to mind until our next meeting, I'll bring it up at the next meeting. But yeah, I'll think at the moment. Thank you. And Julio? I'm the same. Nothing comes to mind right now. Thank you, Susanna. Same. Thank you. Lindsay? Same. Thank you. And Julie, anything that comes to mind? No, but thank you for asking. And Jeffrey, we will discuss this after this call, so I'm sure you might have some thoughts on your mind. So with that, we can close out this session. I do have a motion to close out this meeting. I'll make that motion. Second. Thank you so much. That was so quick this time, Julio. Just ready to go. The recommendations that were made today, I think it was very successful, I'm not really sure. But it seems that way. So maybe, and I will be sending you out the reports of recommendations that were made up into this point so that we can discuss a little bit about all of the recommendations and make sure that we're still in alignment. Okay. Thank you so much.