House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
| 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION | |
|
|
|
JournalsNo. 314 Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
| Prayer |
| National Anthem |
| Statements By Members |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements. |
| Oral Questions |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions. |
| Deferred Recorded Divisions |
Private Members' Business |
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City), seconded by Mr. Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour), — That Bill S-210, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be concurred in at report stage. |
|
|
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 755 -- Vote no 755) | |
| YEAS: 293, NAYS: 1 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aboultaif Dubé Lapointe Ratansi Total: -- 293 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Trost Total: -- 1 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
Accordingly, the Bill was concurred in at report stage and ordered for a third reading at the next sitting of the House. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Harvey (Tobique—Mactaquac), seconded by Mr. Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon), — That the House recognize the importance that Visitability can have for Canadians of all ages and abilities, and particularly persons with a physical disability, aging individuals, seniors and their families, in Canada, by: (a) emphasizing the efforts of companies, contractors and builders who are already applying the principles of Visitability in their new constructions; (b) encouraging the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities to address the topic of Visitability in the accessibility legislation to be introduced in the House; and (c) inviting the federal government to address the subject of Visitability with its provincial and territorial partners in upcoming Federal, Provincial and Territorial discussions. (Private Members' Business M-157) |
|
|
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 756 -- Vote no 756) | |
| YEAS: 295, NAYS: 0 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aboultaif Dubourg Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) Rempel Total: -- 295 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Nil--Aucun |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie), seconded by Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), — That, in the opinion of the House, being a global climate change leader and building a clean energy economy means: (a) investing in clean, renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal as well as investing in energy efficient technologies that create good quality, long-lasting jobs for today’s workers and future generations; (b) putting workers and skills training at the heart of the transition to a clean energy economy so workers don’t have to choose between a good job and a healthy environment for themselves and their families; and (c) not spending billions of public dollars on increasingly obsolete fossil fuel infrastructure and subsidies that increase greenhouse gas emissions and pollution and put Canadians’ health and Canada’s environment, coastlines, waterways, and wildlife, as well as Canada’s marine and tourism jobs at risk. |
|
|
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 757 -- Vote no 757) | |
| YEAS: 48, NAYS: 245 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Angus Choquette Gill Pauzé Total: -- 48 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Aboultaif Ehsassi Lefebvre Robillard Total: -- 245 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
Private Members' Business |
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Sangha (Brampton Centre), seconded by Mr. Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook), — That Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be now read a third time and do pass. |
|
|
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 758 -- Vote no 758) | |
| YEAS: 200, NAYS: 93 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aldag Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona) Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) Quach Total: -- 200 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Aboultaif Doherty Leitch Scheer Total: -- 93 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
Accordingly, the Bill was read the third time and passed. |
|
Government Orders |
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division at report stage of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with amendments. |
| Group No. 1 | |
|
The House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 1 of Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), seconded by Mr. Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil), — That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 1. |
|
|
The question was put on Motion No. 1 and it was negatived on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 759 -- Vote no 759) | |
| YEAS: 84, NAYS: 210 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aboultaif Doherty Leitch Schmale Total: -- 84 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Aldag Dusseault Laverdière Ramsey Total: -- 210 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
Accordingly, Motions Nos. 2 to 59 were also negatived on the same division. |
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), Mr. LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), seconded by Mr. MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), moved, — That the Bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage. |
|
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 760 -- Vote no 760) | |
| YEAS: 201, NAYS: 92 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aldag Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona) Lapointe Poissant Total: -- 201 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Aboultaif Diotte Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Schmale Total: -- 92 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
Accordingly, the Bill, as amended, was concurred in at report stage and ordered for a third reading at the next sitting of the House. |
|
| Daily Routine Of Business |
Tabling of Documents |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions: |
— Nos. 421-02280, 421-02283, 421-02287 and 421-02290 concerning discrimination. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-32-21;
|
— No. 421-02281 concerning minimum wage. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-97-02;
|
— Nos. 421-02282, 421-02291 and 421-02292 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-3-53;
|
— No. 421-02284 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-11-25;
|
— No. 421-02285 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-36-12;
|
— No. 421-02286 concerning national parks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-61-04;
|
— No. 421-02288 concerning the Senate. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-64-02;
|
— No. 421-02289 concerning refugees. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-2-10;
|
— No. 421-02293 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-24-18;
|
— No. 421-02294 concerning species at risk. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-50-06.
|
Motions |
|
Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), seconded by Mr. Bittle (St. Catharines), moved, — That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day. |
|
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on division. |
| Government Orders |
|
The Order was read for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts. |
|
Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) for Ms. Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice), seconded by Ms. Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), moved, — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House: |
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;
|
proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:
|
“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
|
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.
|
|
Debate arose thereon. |
| Tabling of Documents |
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1717 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-143.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1718 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-144.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1719 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-145.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1720 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-146.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1721 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-147.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1722 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-148.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1723 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-149.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1724 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-150.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1725 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-151.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1726 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-152.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1727 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-153.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1728 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-421-154.
|
| Government Orders |
|
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice), seconded by Ms. Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House: |
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;
|
proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:
|
“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
|
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.
|
|
The debate continued. |
| Private Members' Business |
|
At 5:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business. |
|
The House resumed consideration at report stage of Bill S-218, An Act respecting Latin American Heritage Month, as reported by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage without amendment; |
|
And of Motion No. 1. |
|
Motion No. 1 of Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert), seconded by Mr. Rankin (Victoria), — That Bill S-218 be amended by deleting the short title. |
|
The debate continued on Motion No. 1. |
|
At 11:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 98, the Speaker interrupted the proceedings. |
|
The question was put on Motion No. 1 and, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. |
| Government Orders |
|
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice), seconded by Ms. Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House: |
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;
|
proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:
|
“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
|
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.
|
|
The debate continued. |
| Notices of Motions |
|
Ms. Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) gave notice of the intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts. |
| Government Orders |
|
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice), seconded by Ms. Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House: |
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;
|
proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:
|
“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
|
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;
|
respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.
|
|
The debate continued. |
| Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows: |
— by the Speaker — Reports of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8561-421-931-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(v), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics)
|
— by Ms. Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 15th Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, "A Global Fight: Supporting Efforts to Address Sex Trafficking in South Asia" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-343), presented to the House on Thursday, February 15, 2018. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-421-343.
|
— by Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance) — Report of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, together with the Auditors' Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, S.C. 1997, c. 40, sbs. 51(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-665-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)
|
| Petitions Filed with the Clerk of the House |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions was filed as follows: |
— by Mr. Fraser (West Nova), one concerning air transportation (No. 421-02458).
|
| Adjournment |
|
At midnight, the Speaker adjourned the House until later today at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). |