| June 13, 2018 — Resuming consideration of the motion of , seconded by , — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill , , 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. |
| June 14, 2018 — — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill , , the House: |
| agrees with amendments 1, 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3 and 4 made by the Senate; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(a) because it indirectly amends the immigration legal framework through a criminal law statute and would treat impaired driving offences differently from other serious criminal offences, including other transportation offences; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendments 2(b), (c) and (g) because mandatory alcohol screening is a proven traffic safety measure that will deter impaired driving and save lives. |