National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act  Madam Speaker, it is important to understand the function of this committee and its chair. As I have already stated, it will not be a parliamentary committee. We have parliamentary committees and well accepted rules among ourselves on how their leadership and chairs will be appointed.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act  Good morning, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of BillC-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. With this bill, our government would fulfill a key commitment it made to Canadians to ensure that our national security framework is working effectively to keep Canadians safe, and to ensure that our rights and freedoms are safeguarded.

Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day  Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to acknowledge the 39th annual Canadian Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day service, which took place yesterday on the nation's front lawn here in Ottawa. Thousands of men and women in uniform from across Canada gathered just outside this chamber to pay solemn tribute to the more than 850 men and women whose names are engraved on the honour roll tablets on Parliament Hill.

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-221. After carefully considering the bill and reviewing the earlier debate on the subject, I want to advise the House that I cannot and will not be supporting it. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to authorize a province or territory to conduct betting on a single sporting event, which is sometimes called “head-to-head betting”.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a point of clarification. The member opposite gave some indication that this confusion he alleges exists is on the backs of the RCMP. Notwithstanding that, quite frankly, on this side of the House, I do not think we could possibly be any clearer that the law remains in effect, so it should be obeyed, it should be upheld, and it should be enforced.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I want to qualify. First, the Prime Minister made it very clear in the campaign and most particularly in the throne speech of our intention in this mandate to bring forward legislation to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We have not been ambiguous in any way and to suggest otherwise is simply not factually correct.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. My questions come from a report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and some of the insight and guidance that it has provided through its scientific research and recommendations for a public health policy framework for the legalization and effective and efficient regulation of cannabis.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, there are just a couple of things I want to clarify for the member. First, the government's promise in its throne speech was to legalize, regulate, and restrict the use of marijuana. The member only spoke to the first third of that, which is legalization. He neglected, unfortunately, to talk about the importance of regulation and restriction for cannabis control.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a few points. The member commented on the issue of decriminalization and suggested that our policy was motivated by anything other than the evidence. I just wanted to inquire if the member was familiar with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, located in Toronto.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, our commitment has been very clear and precise. Our intention is to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana in Canada, and we have not made any other comments. This government is pursuing a public health approach with respect to all of our policies because of our commitment to keeping our communities safe and our citizens healthy.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. There are significant social and health harms associated with cannabis use. Currently, control of cannabis is exercised through an existing legislative framework that has been in place for over a century in this country. Through the best advice of experts from across the fields of science, health, justice, and law enforcement, we are proposing to bring forward a proper, effective, and comprehensive regulatory framework to replace the existing system of control.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, we recognize that there is a disparity in the enforcement of these laws. Quite frankly, in the absence of other supportive evidence, it is difficult to determine whether that is a result of a different approach either by the police in the laying of charges or by the prosecutors in exercising their discretion—and I know that there are different approaches in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in both British Columbia and Newfoundland—or whether that disparity reflects a different pattern of use in those two jurisdictions.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this morning in response to the motion from the hon. member for Victoria. I will begin my remarks by talking about some of the evidence that we have available to us about cannabis control and draw some conclusions from that.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the member opposite for her fine speech. All the facts that she quoted in her speech, with respect to the levels of charges and the numbers of charges being laid, I believe originated from 2012 and therefore are quite dated. I wonder if she has any more up-to-date information.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, the member for Victoria made reference to a particular court case, and I believe it was heard by Justice Selkirk. He quoted some remarks by Justice Selkirk. There were other relevant remarks, and I want to ask him about that. Justice Selkirk, in response to his remarks, was advised by the crown attorney that the federal crown's position was that the possession of marijuana was still illegal to possess and therefore still the law, to which the court said okay and it reset a trial date.