House of Commons Hansard #314 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cannabis.

Topics

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, we are very eager to hear a government member speak about Latin American heritage month. I am the 36th member to speak, and so far no one on the other side of the House has deigned to make a speech on the important bill introduced by a colleague of ours from the other place, Senator Tobias Enverga, who left us far too soon in November.

He sponsored this public bill, and he would surely have been proud to be here today to talk about it with us. I would like to remind the members that he first proposed this bill back in 2015, during the last Parliament. Sadly, there was not enough time to study it before the election was called. I think we can understand and appreciate that this bill was important to Senator Enverga. I am sure we will be able to pass this bill and add to his legacy here in Parliament.

To understand the motivation that led the senator to table Bill S-218, I would like to remind the House of two points from its preamble:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that members of the Latin American community in Canada have made significant contributions to the social, economic and political fabric of the nation;

Whereas the designation of a month as Latin American Heritage Month would be a meaningful way to remember, celebrate and educate the public about these contributions;

With that in mind, I believe that, as Canadians, we can all be proud of our history and common heritage. What unites us is the heritage of each culture, the blending of languages, customs, practices, and places, or in other words, the elements that help to identify us as Canadians today.

Just as our history allowed for the meaningful blending of cultures and languages among the French, the British, and the first nations, in most cases, the history of South American countries allowed South Americans to intentionally choose to join us in Canada. However, they often did so out of necessity.

For example, in 1973, following the coups in Chile and Uruguay, Canada implemented a program to welcome Latin American refugees fleeing the wars and dictatorships. This wave of refugees mainly included people from Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Central America, more specifically, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.

In 1991 and 2011, a large number of people from Colombia, Guatemala, and El Salvador immigrated to Canada as refugees for humanitarian reasons because of the high level of civil insecurity in their countries. Most Latin Americans from other countries who settled in Quebec during that period came for a variety of reasons, namely cyclical economic crises, the transfer of labour from south to north, and family reunification.

I will talk about some of the opportunities Canada has given these individuals, who came here fleeing difficult situations in their own countries. I will talk about the Conservative candidate in the riding of Compton—Stanstead in the 2015 election, Gustavo Labrador, who is a close friend of mine.

In 1995, he landed in Montreal with his wife and her son, who was five years old at the time. Desperate for peace and prosperity, Gustavo quickly realized that he did not like Quebec's big cities, which is why he decided to settle in Sherbrooke. He adopted two little Chinese girls, and his son-in-law has had the pleasure of making a grandfather out of him.

He learned French at the Centre Saint-Michel and studied at the Collégial du Séminaire de Sherbrooke. He found work at the Sûreté du Québec central dispatch answering 911 calls.

Why did he decide to seek political office? Here is his answer, quoted from a blog by Studio Jean Malo in Sherbrooke:

The Conservative Party's values have resonated with me for a very long time now. I am a great believer in individual responsibility, in a government that does not interfere in people's personal lives and that keeps its purse strings tight. I also believe in a government that supports families. Our children are the future of this nation. I come from a country, Venezuela, where there is a lot of insecurity. We have security here.... We need to make sure that those whom we welcome here will not jeopardize the safely and security of Canadians.

In short, Gustavo came here and decided to actively participate in our society. He is very active in his community and took part in the electoral process. He is not here today, but that is not the point of our discussion or my presentation. This individual fled his own country and the difficult situation there, and had a chance to achieve his dreams and raise his family here.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons, I want to applaud Gustavo and all the other Latin Americans who decided to go into politics, represent their fellow citizens, and serve their country.

In Canada, almost 450,000 people are from Latin American countries such as Mexico, Peru, Brazil and Cuba. They live right across the country, mainly in large cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, and Ottawa. World statistics are even more astounding. There are 447 million Hispanic people. They are so omnipresent, that we have even integrated their language into ours. I could invite everyone to a fiesta on my patio where we would all eat tacos and guacamole. That is now part of our own culture. These people brought with them their culture and we are very pleased to share it.

My riding of Mégantic—L'Érable has a small Latin American population. According to the most recent census, there were 175 people whose mother tongue was Spanish. It is very difficult to distinguish between people of Latin American origin and Hispanics who come from other countries because we do not have access to that data. However, today we can say that 175 people whose mother tongue is Spanish live in my riding.

I am pleased to see a member on the other side of the House getting ready to rise. I did a little census and could not understand why, after 36 speeches, not one member from the other side of the House had spoken even though there are many constituents in several Liberal ridings whose mother tongue is Spanish. For example, in the riding of Alfred-Pellan, there are 3,865; in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, 220; in Bourassa, 6,375; in Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, 3,615; in Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, 65; in Hull—Aylmer, 2,415; in Honoré-Mercier, the government whip's riding, 4,720; in Laurentides—Labelle, 405; in Louis-Hébert, 1,980; and in Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, 2,800.

This shows that native Spanish speakers are present in large numbers in every riding in Canada. That is why we on this side of the House wonder why no government member has bothered making a speech on this important bill, which is going to help even more people understand Latin American culture and finally recognize the contributions Latin Americans have made to Canada and its communities.

Having spoken with farmers in my riding, I know they still desperately need people from those countries who are interested in coming to work in Canada. The door is open for people like that. My riding has plenty of jobs to offer them, and since we already have a well-established Latin American community, we can safely say that they can expect a warm welcome. We would gladly accommodate anyone who has gone through the regular immigration process and find them a job. Quebeckers and Latin Americans have the same Latin blood running through their veins. I think that is a fact worth mentioning.

Establishing Latin American heritage month is something very important that all hon. members of the House can achieve together. I hope that all hon. members will vote enthusiastically and unanimously in favour of Bill S-218.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commending my Latino brothers from Brazil and what I share with them. I am not of Latin American origin, but of Portuguese origin. I would also like to remind the House that on the government side, we all support this bill. We would be happy to see it return to the Senate to become law as soon as possible.

However, I would also like to remind the House that during the first hour of debate, my colleague from Honoré-Mercier delivered a very passionate speech with all his heart. He himself is Latin American and he explained why he believed that this bill deserved our full support. I think that on our side, we do not have much to add to what our colleague from Honoré-Mercier already said.

I represent a riding where there are roughly 5,000 people of Latin American origin. Over the years they moved to Brossard—Saint-Lambert and they have brought a lot to our community. I could take the same approach as my colleagues and start naming them all, but I doubt that I would have enough time to name all those who deserve to be recognized by their fellow Canadians.

I think all these months that we recognize in the House and designate as specific heritage months are extremely important to their respective communities because they celebrate our contributions to Canada. This is not just about what we receive, though we receive so much; it is also about our tremendous cultural contributions, which go well beyond food, dancing, and music. Culture also encompasses our values, our cultural wealth. The passage of time has made us who we are, has made us the peoples we are. That centuries-long past is what led us to choose immigration.

It is not always an easy path. I am not just talking about those who are driven to exile. I am talking about those who choose immigration, often, but not always, for economic reasons.

The choice to immigrate comes from a place of wanting to do better in life as well as from a desire to share and discover new horizons. I think the Latin American community is an extraordinary example of that. Not only did these people come here seeking a better life for themselves and their families, but also, they came to share a new perspective on life, a more relaxed, less rigid way of managing our time, for example. That is something I certainly believe in. They inspire us to really enjoy time with friends and family, to enjoy a less structured, less North American life. Those are the kinds of cultural features we share to create a friendlier, more easy-going culture.

We bring all these things with us when we immigrate, and they mean so much. That is why it is important to designate months to celebrate the heritage of Canada's various communities.

I am obviously very proud of the fact that, this month, in fact today, we are celebrating the first Portuguese heritage month on the Hill. We celebrated Italian heritage month and there are months when Jewish heritage is celebrated. We have a tremendous number of things to share and to give to our constituents.

The richness and diversity of what makes us such a dynamic and vibrant country often surprises those who visit Canada. I think that the one thing that really surprises tourists is how we have achieved diversity in harmony and succeeded in integrating it as part of our core Canadian values, such as freedom, justice, and order, and also the values of friendliness, sociability, and solidarity.

These are all elements that we should celebrate when we have months to highlight the heritage of each of our communities. I believe that much has already been said of the very important contribution of the Latin American community. Passing this bill is not really something we would think of opposing. It is quite natural that we want to completely support the memory of the senator, and we also believe that diversity enriches Canada. As our Prime Minister said, we are enriched by our diversity and we celebrate it. I believe that that is something the Liberal Party of Canada will always support. None of my caucus colleagues would even think of doubting the value of what it can contribute.

We have already covered a few months on the calendar, and there are a few left to celebrate all the other cultures that have helped make Canadian such a vibrant patchwork, with all of its cultures, influences, and characteristics. I am very pleased to support this bill and to finalize it so that it can be sent back to the Senate for royal assent as quickly as possible, so that we will be able to celebrate Latin American heritage month this October 2018.

I think that the entire Latin American community will be very happy and pleased that we are recognizing this community, and it will also be very proud of its rich culture. This culture includes not only the most recent aspects of Latin culture, but also all of the indigenous cultures that inspired present-day Latin American cultures.

Once again, I want to reiterate the support of government members for this bill. We will be very happy to see it sent back to the Senate as quickly as possible. I thank the House for finally giving me the opportunity to speak. I hope that we will be ready to vote very soon.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 11:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 1?

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Latin American Heritage Month ActPrivate Members' Business

11:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 29, the deferred recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to 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.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway had two minutes for questions and comments remaining.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member what he thinks about the growing of marijuana in residences. The Senate has recommended that it would be up to the provinces to decide whether it would be legal to grow recreational marijuana, four plants which is actually 12 plants. Would the member agree with the recommendation of the Senate that it would be up to the provinces?

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of factual points I would like to make.

First of all, the legislation says that it would allow Canadians to grow up to four plants per household. The member made a reference to 12 plants; I am not sure where that comes from.

Yes, we on this side of the House do believe that is a reasonable and proper provision of this bill. It was the task force on cannabis legalization headed by Anne McLellan that did an exhaustive examination of this issue, and decided to recommend that Canadians should be able to grow four plants. As the member may know, under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, Canadians have the constitutional right to grow medicinal cannabis. It would seem quite perverse if the people in one house on a block could grow cannabis legally because they are growing it for medicinal use, and in the house beside it the people were not able to grow it simply because of the different purpose.

I also would point out that every single jurisdiction in the United States, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and California, this year, all permit the growing of marijuana in reasonable limits and with reasonable parameters around it. If we want to have legalization of cannabis in this country, we have to trust Canadians to be able to responsibly use cannabis and to grow plants like any other plant, as long as it is done responsibly and in a reasonable amount.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec

Liberal

Marc Miller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague and hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Before I give the formal part of my speech, I would like to start by discussing an element that was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who had spoken about a number of members of the Senate and others as well as the Right Hon. John Turner as to their potential financial interest in legalizing marijuana.

I understand this is an issue of privilege, that members can say what pleases them in this House. However, I found it particularly unparliamentary that the member would raise the record of someone who has served this country with distinction and with honour in talking about the Right Hon. John Turner who was Prime Minister of Canada, and among the positions he occupied he also was the minister of finance and the minister of justice. He is a man of some advanced age, I believe. I would like to wish him a happy birthday; he turned 89 quite recently. I know it on good authority that he has zero interest in the legalization of marijuana or any pecuniary derivative thereof.

I will not presume bad faith on the side of the hon. member, and I hope that when he gets a chance to retract those words he does so because we are in fact talking about a person who served this country honourably, regardless of party lines. I do hope the member takes the chance to retract those comments.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to respond to an amendment adopted by the Senate with regard to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

I commend the Senate for the valuable work that it did as part of its in-depth study of Bill C-45. However, I believe that some of the amendments the Senate adopted do not fully support the political objectives of the bill. They may also have unintended consequences.

Take for example, clause 5.2, a new clause that would provide for the following:

For greater certainty, this Act does not affect the operation of any provision of provincial legislation that is more restrictive with respect to, or prohibits, the cultivation, propagation or harvesting of cannabis in a dwelling-house.

Bill C-45 would allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants per residence. Cannabis grown in a dwelling-house could not, under any circumstances, be sold to others, and anyone who grows more than four plants could be criminally charged.

The justification for the proposal to allow Canadians to grow up to four cannabis plants per household is twofold. First, this proposal would help displace the illegal cannabis market. Second, it would help prevent the unnecessary criminalization of otherwise law-abiding Canadians who safely and responsibly grow a small number of cannabis plants at home for personal use.

Home cultivation would also create a legal source of cannabis for people who do not have easy access to it through a provincial or territorial store or an online platform, particularly those who live in remote regions.

The proposal to allow people to grow a limited quantity of cannabis for personal use is similar to the current provisions regarding tobacco and alcohol. Canadians can legally grow their own tobacco or brew their own beer at home for personal use.

We can also trust Canadians to properly store cannabis, just as they safely store their prescription drugs at home in a responsible manner.

I would also like to point out that in the national cannabis survey, one of the questions the government asked was where people currently get their cannabis and where they thought they might be able to access it in the future. Of all the respondents who use cannabis, only 2% had thought of cultivating it for personal use.

The home cultivation our government is proposing is based on the opinion of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, and is in line with the frameworks adopted by most of the American states that have chosen to legalize and regulate cannabis for non-medical purposes, particularly Colorado, California, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska.

Those states allow home cultivation and have limits regarding the number of plants that can be grown, ranging from four to 12 plants per household. It is important to remember that Bill C-45 was designed to allow the provinces and territories to oversee the distribution and sale of cannabis within their borders and to add additional restrictions regarding certain aspects that are not proposed in the federal cannabis legislation, such as personal cultivation, if they wish.

That flexibility is there so they can adapt their laws in response to local realities and priorities in a way that is compatible with the public health and public safety goals in the proposed cannabis legislation.

The Government of Canada believes that the provinces and territories are in the best position to determine whether they need such restrictions and to establish tougher regulations. Most of the provinces do allow home cultivation of four plants as set out in Bill C-45. However, some provinces have already chosen to include restrictions in their legislation. For example, New Brunswick requires cannabis cultivated outdoors to be surrounded by a locked enclosure. Indoor cultivation must take place in a separate, locked space. Alberta would allow indoor cultivation only, and Nova Scotia has indicated that it would allow landlords to prohibit cannabis cultivation and smoking in rental units.

If someone decided to challenge a provision of a provincial cannabis law, a court would review the provincial system in its entirety, along with the federal cannabis law. It would then be up to the court to determine whether there was a conflict or whether the objectives of the federal legislation had been frustrated.

Over the past two years, our government has carried out extensive consultations and studies to support this bill. In this way, we have developed the best possible measures for protecting all Canadians, especially young Canadians.

Bill C-45 is largely based on the recommendations of the task force I mentioned earlier, which were formulated based on the opinions and expertise gathered through the extensive consultations. The bill reflects and balances the broad array of opinions from the provinces and territories, municipalities, communities, indigenous governments, and a wide range of experts and stakeholders.

The provincial and territorial governments developed their own legislation based on this insightful framework, and their investments and preparations for the establishment of retail systems are well under way.

Bill C-45 proposes to allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants at home. It is essential to allow home cultivation in order to support the government's objective of displacing the illegal market.

The government is proposing a national approach to home cultivation designed to allow this activity to be achieved in a way that takes into account the valuable comments received from countless stakeholders. Although the framework for legalization includes some flexibility for setting certain restrictions on home cultivation, we are of the opinion that this amendment is inconsistent with that approach.

However, as we know, the bill contains a provision to review the cannabis act. Under that provision, three years after the coming into force, the minister will have to ensure that the act and its application are reviewed. Our government is proposing to amend that provision in order to specify that the review in question will include a review of the impacts of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house. Our government is committed to carefully examining the findings of such a review.

Based on the evidence currently before us, we are fully convinced that home cultivation can be done in such a way that is compatible with the health and public safety objectives of the bill. It constitutes a reasonable way to allow adults to grow cannabis for personal use, and that approach squares with the opinion of the task force and the approach adopted by most of the American states that have legalized and regulated cannabis.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Surrey explained to me where the 12 comes from. People are allowed to have four mature plants, four immature plants, and four plants that are just being planted.

If somebody with a prescription for marijuana is growing four plants, and someone else in the household does not have a prescription, does that mean they are allowed eight plants, which is really 24 plants? People are not supposed to share prescriptions with other people. If there is another person in the house with a different prescription for medical marijuana, would that person be allowed four plants, which is really 12, and then there would be 36 in the house?

I just want to know how this is going to work. I think that multiplication is even right with Liberal gun registry math.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC

Madam Speaker, far be it from me to give anyone math instructions, but the member should well know that prescriptions are given on an individual basis and are not to be passed off. She should also know that on a medical basis, up to 30 grams are authorized.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:40 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to read into the record exactly what I said earlier that seemed to have offended the member's feelings.

I said, “An emerging group...of cannabis capitalists...composed of the same police officers and government officials who have spent years prosecuting the war on drugs, has already begun staking its claim to the new recreational market.”

“Some prominent names include: Kim Derry, who served as the deputy chief when the current Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest... was Toronto police chief. He is now the security adviser for THC Meds Ontario. Former Ontario Liberal deputy premier, George Smitherman, who once served as the province's health minister“ is also tied to the the same company. “Former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner is a board member for Muileboom Organics, Inc, Chuck Rifici founded Tweed Cannabis Inc., the country's first licensed provider to go public while he was chief financial officer of the Liberal Party of Canada....Julian Fantino, who once compared cannabis to murder and voted in favour of harsh mandatory minimum sentences for cannabis as a member of the Harper cabinet, has now gone into the cannabis business.”

“It is a travesty of justice and hypocrisy of the highest order that those who fought hardest for legalization may benefit the least from it, while those who spent a lifetime enforcing prohibition are now lining up to fill the boardrooms of the cannabis industry.”

I would like my hon. colleague to answer this. What was wrong with any of that? What is inaccurate? Why did John Turner, when he was prime minister, not legalize cannabis if he now thinks that he should be on the board of directors of a company and profit from it?

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that he is speaking about a former prime minister, the Right hon. John Turner, who served this country honourably and in a very distinguished fashion. I see absolutely no remorse on the member's part, so I feel no particular compulsion or need to answer any further questions, which are quite leading.

I would encourage the member to examine his conscience a little more in-depth and show a little remorse and respect for the House, and respect for a former distinguished prime minister, and distinguished cabinet minister, both in finance and justice. The member should take a little time and think about what he just said.

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, we have heard what the Liberal government was going to do regarding education. However, as a mother, I have received nothing, and I do not believe any other parent have received anything. Where is this education that the government promised six months ago?

Cannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite examines the fiscal framework that we have been discussing with the provinces, she will note that we will be taking none of profits for personal use but investing it into fighting a lot of the ills that the consumption of cannabis has caused, including ensuring that youth know about the ills of consuming cannabis, particularly the effect on the immature brain.

We will be giving 75% to provinces and municipalities to ensure that they address the issue, because they are in a good position to address it, and that they put it through their streams to ensure youth, in particular, know of the ills of consuming cannabis.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motionCannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motionCannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings, but the end of the member's intervention was cut off by translation, and we did not hear the last 30 seconds of it.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motionCannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Apparently, there was a problem with translation. I would ask the government House leader to reread the notice of time allocation.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motionCannabis ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

I will read it into the record in English, Madam Speaker.

I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to 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.