Order Paper and Notice Paper
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following Routine Proceedings. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
Order of Business
(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
Senators' Statements (15 minutes)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS (30 minutes)
1. Tabling of Documents
2. Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees
3. Government Notices of Motions
4. Government Notices of Inquiries
5. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
6. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
7. First Reading of Commons Public Bills
8. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
9. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
10. Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations
11. Notices of Motions
12. Notices of Inquiries
13. Tabling of Petitions
Question Period (30 minutes)
Delayed Answers
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Government Business
• Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
• Bills — Third Reading
• Bills — Reports of Committees
• Bills — Second Reading
• Reports of Committees — Other
• Motions
• Inquiries
• Other
Other Business
• Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
• Senate Public Bills — Third Reading
• Commons Public Bills — Third Reading
• Private Bills — Third Reading
• Senate Public Bills — Reports of Committees
• Commons Public Bills — Reports of Committees
• Private Bills — Reports of Committees
• Senate Public Bills — Second Reading
• Commons Public Bills — Second Reading
• Private Bills — Second Reading
• Reports of Committees — Other
• Motions
• Inquiries
• Other
NOTICE PAPER
• Notices of Motions
• Notices of Inquiries
Orders Of The Day
Government Business
Bills – Messages from the House of Commons
Nil
Bills – Third Reading
No. 1.
February 8, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wetston, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier, for the third reading of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act, as amended.
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Massicotte, seconded by the Honourable Senator Christmas:
That Bill C-25, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 24,
(a)on page 9, by adding the following after line 31:
“172.01 A prescribed corporation shall establish numerical goals, such as percentages, for the representation of persons in each designated group, as defined by regulation, among its directors and among members of senior management, as defined by regulation, and shall establish a timetable for attaining those goals, within one year after the day on which this section comes into force.”; and
(b)on page 10,
(i)by adding the following after line 2:
“(1.1) The directors shall also place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting beginning one year after the day on which the numerical goals referred to in section 172.01 are established and until the corporation has attained those goals, a report on the progress made by the corporation in the previous year in terms of attaining those goals.”,
(ii)by replacing lines 3 to 5 (as replaced by the decision of the Senate on February 7, 2018) with the following:
“(2) The corporation shall provide the information referred to in subsections (1) and (1.1) to each shareholder, except to a share-”, and
(iii) by replacing lines 7 to 9 (as replaced by the decision of the Senate on February 7, 2018) with the following:
“they do not want to receive that information, by sending the information along with the notice referred to in subsection 135(1) or by making the information available along with a proxy circular referred to in subsection 150(1).
(3) The corporation shall concurrently send the information referred to in subsections (1) and (1.1) to the Director in the form that the Director fixes and the Director shall file it.
(4) The Director shall, within three months after receiving it, provide the Minister with the information filed under subsection (3).
(5) The Minister shall prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after October 31, an annual report for the previous year containing an aggregate of the data from the information received under subsection (4). The Minister shall also, after it is tabled, make the report available to the public.”.
Bills – Reports of Committees
Nil
Bills – Second Reading
No. 1.
January 30, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Wetston, for the second reading of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act.
No. 2.
November 30, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.
No. 3.
February 14, 2018—Second reading of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing).
No. 4.
February 15, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Sinclair, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mitchell, for the second reading of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
No. 5.
February 6, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cools, for the second reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
No. 6.
February 8, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, for the second reading of Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Reports of Committees – Other
Nil
Motions
No. 1.
December 8, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:
That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
No. 166.
By the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:
February 15, 2018—That in accordance with subsection 54(1) of the Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, the Senate approve the appointment of Caroline Maynard as Information Commissioner.
Inquiries
No. 2.
By the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:
March 28, 2017—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled Building a Strong Middle Class, tabled in the House of Commons on March 22, 2017, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 28, 2017.
Other
No. 1.
AT 6:30 P.M., PURSUANT TO THE ORDER ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2018
February 15, 2018—The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive Caroline Maynard respecting her nomination as Information Commissioner.
Other Business
Rule 4-15(2) states:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, any item of Other Business on the Order Paper and any motion or inquiry on the Notice Paper that have not been proceeded with during 15 sitting days shall be dropped from the Order Paper and Notice Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parentheses indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
Bills – Messages from the House of Commons
Nil
Senate Public Bills – Third Reading
No. 1.
March 28, 2017—Third reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speakership of the Senate).—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
No. 2.
February 15, 2018—Third reading of Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics), as amended.—(Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen)
No. 3. (thirteen)
June 13, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., for the third reading of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 4.
February 15, 2018—Third reading of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation of shark fins), as amended.—(Honourable Senator Gold)
Commons Public Bills – Third Reading
Nil
Private Bills – Third Reading
Nil
Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees
No. 1. (six)
November 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Manning, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), with amendments), presented in the Senate on October 31, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 2.
February 1, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the adoption of the twenty-second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Artist Laureate), with amendments), presented in the Senate on December 14, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 3. (one)
February 13, 2018—Consideration of the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (Bill S-237, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), with amendments), presented in the Senate on February 13, 2018.—(Honourable Senator Black (Alberta))
Commons Public Bills – Reports of Committees
Nil
Private Bills – Reports of Committees
Nil
Senate Public Bills – Second Reading
No. 1. (eleven)
February 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children against standard child-rearing violence).—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 2. (eight)
March 24, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Property qualifications of Senators).—(Honourable Senator Wells)
No. 3. (three)
June 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (eliminating foreign funding).—(Honourable Senator Dupuis)
No. 4. (eleven)
December 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, for the second reading of Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)
No. 5. (four)
November 1, 2017—Second reading of Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Competition Act (misrepresentations to public).—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 6. (one)
November 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Downe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 7. (one)
February 13, 2018—Second reading of Bill S-244, An Act respecting Kindness Week.—(Honourable Senator Munson)
No. 8.
February 15, 2018—Second reading of Bill S-245, An Act to declare the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.—(Honourable Senator Black (Alberta))
Commons Public Bills – Second Reading
No. 1. (four)
October 26, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator White, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the second reading of Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder.—(Honourable Senator Day)
No. 2. (twelve)
December 6, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mégie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, for the second reading of Bill C-243, An Act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy.—(Honourable Senator Mégie)
No. 3. (fourteen)
October 24, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 4. (eight)
June 6, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code (sexual assault).—(Honourable Senator Cools)
Private Bills – Second Reading
Nil
Reports of Committees – Other
No. 1. (one)
November 15, 2016—Resuming debate on the consideration of the first report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on October 4, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)
No. 5. (nine)
November 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the adoption of the sixth report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Speakership), presented in the Senate on October 5, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
No. 6. (three)
November 22, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Massicotte, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore for the adoption of the seventh report (interim), as amended, of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Regional interest), presented in the Senate on October 18, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Wells)
No. 7. (six)
February 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beyak for the adoption of the ninth report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Question Period), presented in the Senate on October 25, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)
No. 8. (eight)
December 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy for the adoption of the tenth report (interim), as amended, of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Nature), presented in the Senate on October 26, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Housakos)
No. 10. (fourteen)
March 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:
That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, entitled Pipelines for Oil: Protecting our Economy, Respecting our Environment, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on December 7, 2016 be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Natural Resources being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Ministers of Transport and Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.—(Honourable Senator Day)
No. 15. (eleven)
March 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley for the adoption of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Sessional Order, presented in the Senate on March 7, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Smith)
No. 29. (eight)
May 9, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, for the adoption of the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled Military underfunded: The walk must match the talk, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on April 13, 2017.
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be not now adopted, but that it be amended by deleting the second recommendation.—(Honourable Senator Dagenais)
No. 33. (eight)
May 11, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:
That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces: A plan for the future, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 8, 2017, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of National Defence being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for consideration, particularly in light of the document entitled Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy, tabled in the Senate on June 7, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Dagenais)
No. 50. (five)
November 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the consideration of the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled Decarbonizing Transportation in Canada, tabled in the Senate on June 22, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Neufeld)
No. 51. (five)
February 1, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mockler, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:
That the nineteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance entitled Getting Ready: For a new generation of active seniors, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 27, 2017, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Labour, and the Minister of Health.—(Honourable Senator Bellemare)
No. 52. (five)
February 1, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mockler, seconded by the Honourable Senator Raine:
That the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance entitled Smarter Planning, Smarter Spending: Ensuring Transparency, Accountability and Predictability in Federal Infrastructure Programs, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 6, 2017 be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 64. (four)
December 11, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Massicotte, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas for the adoption of the twenty-first report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Audit and Oversight, presented in the Senate on November 28, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 66. (one)
February 13, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mockler, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:
That the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, entitled Fair, Simple and Competitive Taxation: The way forward for Canada, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on December 13, 2017, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Finance being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.—(Honourable Senator Pratte)
No. 72. (two)
February 8, 2018—Consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, entitled Driving Change: Technology and the Future of the Automated Vehicle, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on January 29, 2018.—(Honourable Senator Dawson)
Motions
No. 31. (three)
February 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga:
That the Senate — in order to ensure transparency in the awarding of public funds and foster efficiency in infrastructure projects in the larger context of economic diversification and movement toward a greener economy, all while avoiding undue intervention in the federal-provincial division of powers — encourage the government to make provision in the budget for the creation of the Canadian Infrastructure Oversight and Best Practices Council, made up of experts in infrastructure projects from the provinces and territories, whose principal roles would be to:
1.collect information on federally funded infrastructure projects;
2. study the costs and benefits of federally funded infrastructure projects;
3. identify procurements best practices and of risk sharing;
4. promote these best practices among governments; and
5. promote project managers skills development; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House with the above.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 73. (six)
March 24, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman:
Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women;
Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;
Whereas a person’s personal circumstances or the availability of real property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the required property;
Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who own real property of a minimum net worth;
Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;
Whereas, in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral Division;
Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respecting the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the Schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
1.(1) Paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is repealed.
(2) Section 23 of the Act is amended by replacing the semi-colon at the end of paragraph (5) with a period and by repealing paragraph (6).
2.The Declaration of Qualification set out in The Fifth Schedule to the Act is replaced by the following:
I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.
3. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Real property qualification of Senators).—(Honourable Senator Pratte)
No. 89. (ten)
May 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:
That, in order to ensure that legislative reports of Senate committees follow a transparent, comprehensible and non-partisan methodology, the Rules of the Senate be amended by replacing rule 12-23(1) by the following:
“Obligation to report bill
12-23. (1) The committee to which a bill has been referred shall report the bill to the Senate. The report shall set out any amendments that the committee is recommending. In addition, the report shall have appended to it the committee’s observations on:
(a) whether the bill generally conforms with the Constitution of Canada, including:
(i) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
(ii) the division of legislative powers between Parliament and the provincial and territorial legislatures;
(b) whether the bill conforms with treaties and international agreements that Canada has signed or ratified;
(c) whether the bill unduly impinges on any minority or economically disadvantaged groups;
(d) whether the bill has any impact on one or more provinces or territories;
(e) whether the appropriate consultations have been conducted;
(f) whether the bill contains any obvious drafting errors;
(g) all amendments moved but not adopted in the committee, including the text of these amendments; and
(h) any other matter that, in the committee’s opinion, should be brought to the attention of the Senate.”
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:
1.adding the following new subsection after proposed subsection (c):
“(d) whether the bill has received substantive gender-based analysis;”; and
2.by changing the designation for current proposed subsections (d) to (h) to (e) to (i).—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)
No. 92. (six)
May 17, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan:
That the Senate note with concern the escalating and hostile behaviour exhibited by the People’s Republic of China in the South China Sea and consequently urge the Government of Canada to encourage all parties involved, and in particular the People’s Republic of China, to:
(a) recognize and uphold the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight as enshrined in customary international law and in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;
(b) cease all activities that would complicate or escalate the disputes, such as the construction of artificial islands, land reclamation, and further militarization of the region;
(c) abide by all previous multilateral efforts to resolve the disputes and commit to the successful implementation of a binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea;
(d) commit to finding a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the disputes in line with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and respect the settlements reached through international arbitration; and
(e) strengthen efforts to significantly reduce the environmental impacts of the disputes upon the fragile ecosystem of the South China Sea;
That the Senate also urge the Government of Canada to support its regional partners and allies and to take additional steps necessary to de-escalate tensions and restore the peace and stability of the region; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it with the foregoing.—(Honourable Senator McCoy)
No. 139. (nine)
February 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.:
That with Canada celebrating 150 years as a nation and acknowledging the lasting contribution of the First Nations, early settlers, and the continuing immigration of peoples from around the world who have made and continue to make Canada the great nation that it is, the Senate urge the Government to commit to establishing a National Portrait Gallery using the former US Embassy across from Parliament Hill as a lasting legacy to mark this important milestone in Canada’s history and in recognition of the people who contributed to its success.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
No. 146. (seven)
December 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce be authorized to:
(a)Review the operations of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC), the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), and ADR Chambers Banking Ombuds Office (ADRBO);
(b)Review the agencies’ interaction with and respect for provincial jurisdictions;
(c)Review and determine best practices from similar agencies in other jurisdictions;
(d)Provide recommendations to ensure that the FCAC, OBSI, and ADRBO can better protect consumers and respect provincial jurisdiction; and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than March 18, 2018, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Gold)
No. 158. (thirteen)
February 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Merchant, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:
That the Senate call upon the government of Canada:
(a) to recognize the genocide of the Pontic Greeks of 1916 to 1923 and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort a historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity; and
(b) to designate May 19th of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the over 353,000 Pontic Greeks who were killed or expelled from their homes.—(Honourable Senator Day)
No. 189. (three)
May 8, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator McCoy:
That the Rules of the Senate be amended by:
1.replacing the period at the end of rule 12-7(16) by the following:
“; and
Human Resources
12-7. (17) the Standing Senate Committee on Human Resources, to which may be referred matters relating to human resources generally.”; and
2.updating all cross references in the Rules accordingly.—(Honourable Senator Gold)
No. 215.
June 20, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That the Senate take note of Agenda 2030 and the related sustainable development goals adopted by the United Nations on September 25, 2015, and encourage the Government of Canada to take account of them as it drafts legislation and develops policy relating to sustainable development.
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:
1.adding the words “Parliament and” after the word “encourage”; and
2.replacing, in the English version, the words “it drafts legislation and develops” by the words “they draft legislation and develop”.—(Honourable Senator Plett)
No. 245. (three)
October 17, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:
That the Senate affirm that literacy is a core component to active citizenship, a determinant for healthy outcomes, and, at its core, key to building an innovative economy with good, sustainable jobs;
That the Senate urge the Government to take into consideration the particular regional circumstances of Atlantic Canada based on smaller populations, many of which are in rural areas, when determining whether to implement programs using project-based funding compared to core funding;
That the Senate further urge the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to make an exception to the present terms and conditions of the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills project-based funding programs in order to request an emergency submission to the Treasury Board for $600,000 of core funding for the Atlantic Partnership for Literacy and Essential Skills based on their 2017 pre-budget consultation submission to Parliament; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house with the foregoing.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
No. 286. (five)
January 30, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.:
That, pursuant to chapter 4:01, section 2, of the Senate Administrative Rules, for the remainder of the current session, any senator who occupies more than one position of chair or deputy chair of a committee for which an additional allowance is payable be authorized to waive the portion of his or her allowance payable in respect of those additional positions of chair or deputy chair.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 292. (three)
February 1, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That, without affecting the progress of any proceedings relating to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of the bill;
That the committee receive the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs;
That the witness be accompanied by officials;
That the Committee of the Whole report to the Senate no later than two hours after it begins;
That television cameras and photographers be authorized in the Senate Chamber to broadcast and photograph the proceedings with the least possible disruption of the proceedings;
That the provisions of the order of February 4, 2016, respecting the time of adjournment, be suspended on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, until the Committee of the Whole has reported; and
That the provisions of rule 3-3(1) be suspended on Wednesday, February 7, 2018.—(Honourable Senator Bellemare)
No. 302.
February 15, 2018—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marwah:
That the Senate administration be instructed to remove the website of the Honourable Senator Beyak from any Senate server and cease to support any website for the senator until the process undertaken by the Senate Ethics Officer following a request to conduct an inquiry under the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators in relation to the content of Senator Beyak’s website and her obligations under the Code is finally disposed of, either by the tabling of the Senate Ethics Officer’s preliminary determination letter or inquiry report, by a report of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, or by a decision of the Senate respecting the matter.—(Honourable Senator Bovey)
Inquiries
No. 8. (thirteen)
May 5, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, calling the attention of the Senate to the Senate’s legislative work from the 24th to the 41st Parliament and on elements of evaluation.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 12. (fourteen)
May 18, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Seidman, calling the attention of the Senate to its role in the protection of regional and minority representation.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 13. (thirteen)
October 25, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, calling the attention of the Senate to the relevance of full employment in the 21st century in a Globalized economy.—(Honourable Senator Petitclerc)
No. 19. (one)
December 8, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Pate, calling the attention of the Senate to the circumstances of some of the most marginalized, victimized, criminalized and institutionalized in Canada, particularly the increasing over-representation of Indigenous women in Canadian prisons.—(Honourable Senator Sinclair)
No. 20. (one)
February 14, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Tardif, calling the attention of the Senate to regional universities and the important role they play in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Cordy)
No. 24. (one)
May 16, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Wallin, calling the attention of the Senate to the proposal put forward by Senator Harder, titled “Sober Second Thinking”, which reviews the Senate’s performance since the appointment of independent senators, and recommends the creation of a Senate business committee.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 25. (two)
May 11, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Maltais, calling the attention of the Senate to the softwood lumber crisis.—(Honourable Senator Maltais)
No. 26. (one)
May 30, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, calling the attention of the Senate to the important opportunity we have to review our principles and procedures with a view to ensuring that the Senate has the strongest most effective policies and mechanisms possible to respond to complaints against senators of sexual or other kinds of harassment.—(Honourable Senator Galvez)
No. 28. (two)
June 21, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bovey, calling the attention of the Senate to the crisis in Churchill, Manitoba.—(Honourable Senator Day)
No. 31. (twelve)
October 3, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Munson, calling the attention of the Senate to the 10th anniversary of its groundbreaking report Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis.—(Honourable Senator Martin)
No. 32. (six)
December 12, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Wallin, calling the attention of the Senate to the federal government’s legal obligation to protect and maintain Canada’s voluntary blood system and to examine the issues surrounding commercial, cash- for- blood operations.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)
No. 33. (one)
February 13, 2018—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Day, calling the attention of the Senate to the career of the Honourable Senator Fraser.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 35. (one)
February 13, 2018—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Day, calling the attention of the Senate to the career of the Honourable Senator Tardif.—(Honourable Senator Cormier)
Other
Nil
Notice Paper
Motions
No. 298. (two)
By the Honourable Senator Neufeld:
February 8, 2018—That the Senate, whose members represent the various regions, provinces and territories of Canada, note with concern that people and businesses in British Columbia and Alberta are already beginning to suffer from the fall-out of an escalating inter-provincial trade dispute;
That the Senate urge the Prime Minister to bring the full weight and power of his office and that of the Government of Canada to ensure that the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion is completed on schedule; and
That the Senate also urge that the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government to the goal of ensuring that the expansion is completed on time be officially conveyed to the governments of British Columbia and Alberta in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the federal government’s determination to see the project become fully operational within the present timeline.
Inquiries
No. 34. (three)
By the Honourable Senator Manning:
February 1, 2018—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the extraordinary life of Captain Augustine Dalton.
No. 36. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Bellemare:
February 13, 2018—That she will call the attention of the Senate to the challenges of literacy and essential skills for the 21st century in Canada, the provinces and the territories.
Written Questions
No. 55.
By the Honourable Senator Dyck:
September 19, 2017—1.Please provide information on all major capital water and waste water projects funded over the last ten years (2005-06 to 2015-16). The following information is requested for each project:
•the total cost of the project;
• whether the project is a water or waste water project;
•whether the project is a greenfield project, an expansion or a retrofit; and
•the total number of houses initially (and/or currently) served by the project.
2.Please provide budget details for all infrastructure programming directed to First Nation communities during the past 10 years (2005-06 to 2015-16). The following details are requested:
•the total amount budgeted for the program;
•the amount transferred to support mandatory programs;
•the amount dedicated to Major Capital projects;
•the amount dedicated to Minor Capital; and
•the amount of Minor Capital dedicated to housing.
No. 57.
By the Honourable Senator McPhedran:
October 4, 2017—The federal budget 2017 included Canada’s first ever Gender Statement, an important symbol of leadership. This was a welcome step toward progress in closing the gender gap to build an inclusive more vibrant economy. But reality for women still paints a stark picture. Statistics Canada revealed earlier this year that women still only earn 74 cents for every dollar men earn. They also make up 60 per cent of minimum wage earners and 67 per cent of part-time workers. Women spend 50 per cent more time than men on unpaid care work. The gender gap is wide and entrenched. Increasing opportunities for women in our economy is key to the demographics that challenge our future.
International research in 50 countries shows that feminist women’s organizations are the single most effective means to building better public policy and better lives for women in countering violence (https://malahtun.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/2012-htun-weldon-apsr.pdf). Yet, they are typically the most underfunded organizations in the non-profit sector in Canada. The Women’s Program at Status of Women represents less than 1/110th of 1 per cent of total federal program spending, amounting to about $1 per woman in Canada. Women’s rights organizations in Canada have been decimated over the past decade under the previous government. The few survivors still operate with modest funding, at best, even with the very welcome funding that Minister Monsef has been announcing.
This government has demonstrated significant leadership over the past year in advancing its feminist agenda and adopting a feminist approach to policy-making. Feminist budgeting is core to realizing equality rights in ways that actually result in positive changes in the lives of women and their families – in other words “lived rights”. Gender budgeting is not merely a technical exercise, but a process that has women’s lived rights at its heart. A feminist approach to budgeting and fiscal policy ensures women’s organizations are well resourced to play their important role in policy-making and are actively included in consultations.
•Will this government commit to increasing direct funding to Canadian women’s organizations, including by increasing the funding envelope for the Women’s Program at Status of Women Canada, and when will this government lift the secrecy of the gender-based methodology and findings used in its budget process?
•What is this government prepared to do, to provide resources needed to engage women’s rights organizations in policy development, with sufficient resources and access, to provide the government with needed policy advice — from beyond government departments?
No. 61.
By the Honourable Senator Pate:
October 26, 2017—In light of the appearance of the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, in the chamber at Question Period on October 24, 2017:
1.In light of the ongoing work of the Working Group of Ministers in reviewing laws, policies and operational practices that affect Indigenous peoples and their rights and interests, what concrete steps have been taken in the course of the review to eliminate the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in prisons in Canada, in accordance with the government’s commitment to implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? In particular, what concrete steps have been taken to make provision for alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous Peoples?
2.In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez called for an absolute ban on the use of solitary confinement with respect to those with mental health issues on the grounds that it constituted torture. Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the Native Women Association Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Commissions have called for the elimination of the use of segregation and other forms of isolation, most particularly for those with mental health issues. With the tenth anniversary of Ashley Smith’s death on October 19, 2017, what concrete steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Coroner’s Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith with respect to providing alternatives to prison and to segregation for those with mental health issues?
No. 62.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
October 31, 2017—The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) continues to play its games when it comes to keeping the public informed about its activities. Stonewalling independent verification of its claims at every point, the Agency continues to hide behind a wall of carefully calculated talking points and statistics, producing vague claims of progress while avoiding a frank description of what they are actually doing, or failing to do.
For example, on October 20, 2017, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Kamal Khera, made the following statements in the House of Commons:
We are on track to recover $25 billion from our efforts against tax evasion and avoidance since coming to office. More work is under way... We have had 627 cases transferred to criminal investigations. We have had 268 search warrants executed, and 78 convictions.
Six weeks previously, in a statement dated September 7, Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier provided the following indications of CRA activity:
•335 cases referred for criminal investigations
•123 search warrants executed
•32 criminal charges laid under the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act and/or the Criminal Code
•37 convictions
•$10 million in court fines and 50.6 years of jail time
•111,712 audits completed
•$12.5 billions in fiscal impact
The statistics cited by the Minister refer to Fiscal Year 2016-17, but the Parliamentary Secretary’s remarks do not refer to a timeframe. However they do suggest that the Canada Revenue Agency has done as much to fight tax evasion in the last six months as they had in the previous year, a spectacular level of success unsupported by any recent announcements by the Agency or the “Convictions” page of the CRA website
Therefore, with respect to the expected recovery of $25 billion, please provide:
1.The amount of the expected recovery related to overseas tax evasion.
2.The amount of the expected recovery related to overseas tax evasion that has actually been collected.
3.The amount of money actually recovered as of November 1, 2017.
With respect to these convictions, please provide:
1.The details of each conviction, including:
(a)The name of the individual(s) convicted;
(b)The name and type (i.e. civil or criminal) of offense;
(c)The amount of money or the type of asset and the value of the asset involved;
(d)The location of the money or asset involved;
(e)The possible range of penalties/sentences upon conviction;
(f)The actual penalty and/or sentence received;
(g)Whether the conviction was achieved through sentencing, plea bargain, settlement, etc.; and,
(h)The amount of time that passed between the commencement of an audit, investigation, or some other form of compliance action in respect of the offence and the date of conviction;
2.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for civil prosecution but never pursued;
3.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for criminal prosecution but never pursued;
4.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted civilly but were thrown out of court or lost in court; and
5.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted criminally but were thrown out of court or lost in court.
No. 63.
By the Honourable Senator Seidman:
October 31, 2017—With respect to Health Canada’s consultation on regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:
(a)How many submissions were received by Health Canada?
(b)What are the names of the individuals and/or organizations that made submissions to the consultation?
(c)What are the names of the other individuals and/or organizations that held meetings with Health Canada officials where regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions was discussed?
(d)Did Health Canada meet with drug safety advocates, including Drug Safety Canada, to discuss the regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions?
(e)Did Health Canada meet with former Member of Parliament Terence Young to discuss the regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions?
(f)Will Health Canada make the submissions to this consultation public in their entirety?
(g)If Health Canada does not plan to make the submissions public, why not?
With respect to the regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:
Health Canada’s 2016 issue identification paper Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Healthcare Institutions notes that Health Canada entered into consultations on mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions and medical incidents by healthcare institutions with a position that required the reporting of all serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents. Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions proposes that prescribed health care institutions be required to provide Health Canada with information about a subset of serious ADRs according to the judgement of healthcare professionals.
(a)What is the rationale for this significant change in Health Canada’s approach?
(b)On whose advice was this change made and why?
(c)Is it the position of the Government of Canada that limiting reporting of serious ADRs to ‘unexpected’ reactions determined at the discretion of healthcare providers meets the intent of the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act?
(d)Has Health Canada identified under-reporting of adverse drug reactions by health care professionals as a problem in the past?
With respect to the regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:
(a)When did adverse drug reactions associated with cisapride (Prepulsid) first become known to Health Canada?
(b)How many reports of adverse reactions associated with Prepulsid had Health Canada received as of December 1999?
(c)How many reports of adverse drug reactions associated with Prepulsid involving heart and rhythm disorders had Health Canada received as of December 1999?
(d)Did Prepulsid’s product monograph identify cardiac risks associated with Prepulsid as of December 1999?
(e)Given that the regulatory proposal related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation paper Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions defines a serious unexpected adverse drug reaction (ADR) as defined in Division 1 of the Food and Drug Regulations to be “a serious ADR that is not identified in nature, severity or frequency in the risk information set out on the label of the drug”, would an adverse drug reaction associated with Prepulsid resulting in arrhythmia followed by cardiac arrest today be considered an unexpected adverse drug reaction under Health Canada’s current proposed regulatory approach with regard to the scope of reportable serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents?
(f)Would the death of Vanessa Young in April 2000 due to arrhythmia followed by cardiac arrest resulting from the effects of bulimia nervosa in conjunction with cisapride (Prepulsid) toxicity today be considered an unexpected adverse drug reaction by Health Canada according to the proposed regulations?
(g)Would the death of Vanessa Young in April 2000 from an adverse drug reaction today be exempt from mandatory reporting according to the proposed regulations?
No. 64.
By the Honourable Senator Griffin:
November 1, 2017—Further to my question to the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence in this chamber at Question Period on October 31, 2017 on national shipbuilding spending and ensuring equitable spending for each province, I ask the following:
1.What is the amount of money spent per province on national shipbuilding?
2.On a per capita basis, what is the amount of money spent per province on national shipbuilding?
No. 65.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
November 2, 2017—Regarding the Veterans Priority Program Secretariat:
In the answer tabled on September 19, 2017 to Written Question No. 45, the Government stated that the Veterans Priority Program Secretariat of Veterans Affairs Canada is “resourced for nine full time employees as well as employs students on an ongoing basis. Three positions are currently vacant though are to be staffed imminently. Four of the current compliment are former Canadian Armed Forces members.”
1.Has the Secretariat been fully staffed?
2.Who is currently employed by the Secretariat?
3.How many employees of the Secretariat are former Canadian Armed Forces members?
4.What was the rank of each former Canadian Armed Forces member upon leaving the military?
No. 69.
By the Honourable Senator Smith:
January 30, 2018—Regarding a video titled “The Creation of the GRO in the Senate” (https://senate-gro.ca/senate-renewal/senate-gro-video/) :
1.Who was involved in producing the content of this video?
2.Who paid for it?
No. 70.
By the Honourable Senator Seidman:
February 6, 2018—With regard to the statement contained in Health Canada’s consultation document “Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis” that draft regulations will not be pre-published in order to meet the government’s commitment of bringing the proposed Cannabis Act into force no later than July 2018:
(a)On what grounds did Health Canada seek an exemption from Treasury Board from pre-publication?
(b)Did Treasury Board ministers grant Health Canada a written exemption from pre-publication?
(c)On what date did Treasury Board confirm in writing that it supports an exemption from pre-publication?
(d)What were the specific circumstances under which the proposed regulations were exempted from pre-publication by Treasury Board?
(e)What feedback (both informal and formal) has Health Canada received from stakeholders, including provinces and territories, with regard to its decision not to pre-publish regulations?
No. 71.
By the Honourable Senator Seidman:
February 6, 2018—With respect to the “ongoing digital campaign” to educate Canadians about the health impacts of cannabis referenced by a Health Canada spokesperson in the Hill Times on January 22, 2018 (“Government falling behind on cannabis public education, say critics”):
(a)What is the official name of the Health Canada campaign?
(b)What is the URL of the Health Canada campaign website?
(c)When did the Health Canada campaign officially launch?
(d) On which digital media sharing platforms (e.g. Facebook; Snapchat) is the Health Canada campaign currently active?
(e)What is Health Canada’s total spending to date on targeted online advertising in relation to the campaign?
(f)How many online impressions has the Health Canada campaign received to date?
(g)On what date is the Health Canada campaign projected to end?
No. 72.
By the Honourable Senator Seidman:
February 6, 2018—With respect to the packaging and labelling proposals described in Health Canada’s “Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis”:
Is it the position of Health Canada that the regulatory proposals relating to the appearance of packaging for cannabis products satisfy the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control guidelines for the packaging and labelling of tobacco products?
No. 73.
By the Honourable Senator Smith:
February 7, 2018—With respect to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, “craft” licenses do not have the same security and safety requirements as the big licensed producers, particularly when it comes to outdoor grow operations. For example, the only security requirement for micro-growers will be a fence (no cameras, alarms, or detection systems).
This will create an opportunity for leakage from the legal market to the black market, and open the door for kids to get quick access to cannabis. This is opposite to the government’s objective of protecting youth and keeping cannabis out of the hands of criminals.
1. How do(es) the Minister(s) justify removing all security requirements for micro outdoor grow?
2. What are the implications of this with respect to diversion to the black market?
3.How do(es) the Minister(s) propose to prevent theft of cannabis from farms when their only security requirement is a fence?
4.What analysis has taken place related to a size limitation for outdoor growing?
(a)Please outline the discussions that have taken place; and
(b)Describe the consultations that have taken place with stakeholders and which stakeholders have been engaged.
No. 74.
By the Honourable Senator Smith:
February 7, 2018—With respect to an interview given by the Minister of Public Safety, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, to the CBC in September 2016 regarding the treatment of Canadian citizens who admit prior recreational marijuana use while attempting to cross the shared border with the United States (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ludicrous-pot-border-goodale-1.3754315):
1.Since September 2016, how many times has the Minister discussed the treatment at the border of Canadians who admit prior recreational marijuana use with his counterpart at the United States Department of Homeland Security? Please provide details of these discussions, including:
(a)dates;
(b)locations;
(c)attendees; and
(d)briefing notes or other documents prepared for the Minister.
2.Since September 2016, how many times have the Minister’s officials discussed the treatment at the border of Canadians who admit prior recreational marijuana use with their counterparts at the United States Department of Homeland Security? Please provide details of these discussions, including:
(a)dates;
(b)locations;
(c)attendees; and
(d)briefing notes or other documents prepared.
3.Has the United States Department of Homeland Security provided any information to the Minister or his officials regarding the policy that American officials will follow related to the screening and admissibility to the United States of Canadian citizens who admit prior recreational marijuana use? If affirmative, please summarize the changes and provide the date(s) when this information was communicated to the Minister of Public Safety and/or his officials.
4.Since September 2016, what specific measures has the Government of Canada taken to ensure that travel across the Canada-US border will not be subject to additional delays after the coming into force of Bill C-45?
No. 75.
By the Honourable Senator Smith:
February 7, 2018—The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation states: “Employer groups called for more guidance from federal, provincial and territorial governments about appropriate workplace drug use and drug testing policies.”
The United States of America Department of Transportation’s drug testing regulation 49 CFR Part 40 has set standards that require random testing of employees in roles of transport and public safety with zero tolerance for marijuana.
1. What is the current status of the Government of Canada’s consultation process with provinces, territories and stakeholders to create a framework that will address substance abuse at work?
(a)Please outline the discussions that have taken place; and
(b)Please describe the consultations that have taken place with stakeholders and which stakeholders have been engaged.
2. Has Transport Canada developed a framework for public safety to comply with the United States standards of mandatory random drug testing?
No. 76.
By the Honourable Senator Smith:
February 7, 2018—At the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs meeting February 1, 2018, RCMP Acting Commissioner Kevin Brosseau stated that “given the involvement of organized crime in the illicit cannabis market, we do not expect that the legislation will eliminate organized crime’s presence in the cannabis market”.
Further, Minister of Health Ginette Petitpas Taylor said the illegal market for cannabis will not disappear with the flick of a switch, but that everyone should work together to better protect young Canadians and remove criminal elements from the production chain. “The system is not going to be perfect in July, 2018,” she said. “With respect to the black market, we certainly want to make a dent in it. Do we think it will happen overnight? Absolutely not.” (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-government-targets-black-and-grey-markets-with-legal-cannabis/article37471020/).
1. Can the Government please share any evidence and policing assessments that it possesses to support its assertion that Bill C-45 will eliminate the black market on marijuana? Please provide information on the process that has been followed to make such assessments and outline the research work that has been undertaken and shared through briefing notes for the Ministers of Public Safety, Justice and Health.
2.On what basis is the Government asserting that this legislation will eliminate the black market when RCMP officers have consistently stated that this legislation will not eliminate the black market?
3. Please provide all internal assessments from the Department of Health which inform Minister Petitpas Taylor’s assertion that this legislation will make a “measurable dent” on the black market. What is the anticipated timeline for reducing and ultimately eliminating the black market?
4.There are a plethora of products that will remain illegal following the adoption of this legislation; for instance, marijuana infused creams and other marijuana infused products. Can the Government share RCMP assessments on the impact that parallel illegal products will have in sustaining the black market and the accompanying rationale for legalizing marijuana while keeping parallel products illegal?
No. 77.
By the Honourable Senator Oh:
February 8, 2018—The federal government introduced Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts to legalize, regulate and restrict cannabis in Canada. One of the key policy objectives of this legislation is to protect children and youth. However, various stakeholders have expressed concern that gaps in a number of areas may lead to unintended consequences for this sector of our population. The Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates, which is a national organization of provincial and territorial child and youth advocates, argued last month that the legislation “fails to adequately focus on, or protect, children from the potential harms of legalized cannabis.” (www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadian-council-of-child-and-youth-advocates-issue-statement-on-bill-c-45-the-cannabis-act-671745473.html) Two months earlier, the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, which consists of more than fifty non-governmental organizations, called on the federal government to conduct a thorough Child Rights Impact Assessment of the legislation. (http://rightsofchildren.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Marijuana-Use-and-Young-People-Open-Letter-by-CCRC1.pdf) Such systematic assessment would help ensure that Canada fulfills its obligation, as a duty bearer under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of all children and youth. It would also help identify areas where additional safeguards or education may be necessary to mitigate the potential to normalize the use of recreational cannabis, and to stimulate demand and associated harms among vulnerable youth.
•Could the federal government please confirm that Bill C-45 complies with Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Was a thorough Child Rights Impact Assessment conducted before tabling this legislation? If so, when will the results and recommendations from this assessment be made public?
No. 78.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
February 8, 2018—Regarding the Canada Child Benefit, for the 2016-17 fiscal year:
1.How much money was provided via the Canada Child Benefit per federal electoral district in Prince Edward Island?
2.What was the average monthly payment for those Prince Edward Islanders receiving the Canada Child Benefit?
3.What percentage of recipients in Prince Edward Island had adjusted net family annual income:
(a)under $30,000;
(b)between $30,000 and $49,999;
(c)between $50,000 and $79,999; and
(d)over $80,000.
4.What was the average adjusted net family income for those Prince Edward Islanders receiving the Canada Child Benefit?
No. 79.
By the Honourable Senator McIntyre:
February 14, 2018—With respect to Canada’s international treaty obligations relating to marijuana:
Canada is a signatory to three United Nations drug control conventions: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances; and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
Assuming Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts becomes law, Canada will violate the United Nations drug control conventions that it is legally obliged to follow.
1.Has the Government of Canada determined how it will reconcile its international obligations under these drug control treaties with the legalization of marijuana? If so, will the Government of Canada propose amendments to the terms of these conventions, or will the Government of Canada withdraw from these conventions?
2.If a decision has been taken to withdraw from the conventions, has the Government of Canada provided advance notice of its intention to withdraw from the three conventions under Article 46 of the International Drug Control Conventions, and if so, on what date?
3.If no decision has been taken, when does the Government of Canada intend to announce its intentions regarding these conventions?