Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I would assume the design and build to meet coast to coast production scale of cannabis ‘distilled ‘ ( not infused ) beverages and “other” edible products will cost a pretty penny. I think I will be taking the family to smiths Falls again this year for the Shindig. It will be interesting to see the exterior of the expansions at least. I remember standing outside the facility in 2016 when TWD.v only owned half the facility and the other half , with the dozen shipping docs was not occupied. My wife and I mused about the idea that in a few years delivery trucks would be backing into these docs to receive pallets of products for distribution. Still some ways away. Not too, too far. Keep on dreaming.
Not gonna lie, I’m gonna miss Bedropuur, and when they are allowed back into the Canadian Market , I’ll make a concerted effort to have a stock. Also planning a Cannabis Connoisseur cabinet for some of the other Gems. I’ve very slowly , and reluctantly been gravitating to Spectrum. Bedrocan is just a AAA product imo, especially Bedro oils. Now they’ve gotten the boot and Spectrum gets the booth, I’ll have no other choice but to familiarize myself. And no taxes? AWESOME! I really do hope the Government settles the score with this. But I suspect a DIN or some other clear distinction between Mmj and Rmj is needed
The medical market has sustained exponential growth. Many people assumed that because of RecMj , people wouldn’t bother registering. Wrong
Wednesday, June 13, 2018 (No. 314)
Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills
C-45
An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts
June 12, 2018 — The Minister of Justice — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, the House:
agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the government has been clear that provinces and territories are able to make additional restrictions on personal cultivation but that it is critically important to permit personal cultivation in order to support the government’s objective of displacing the illegal market;
respectfully disagrees with amendments 4, 11(a) and 38 because they would be contrary to the stated purpose of the Cannabis Act to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because the criminal penalties and the immigration consequences aim to prevent young people from accessing cannabis and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for prohibited activities, including importing and exporting cannabis and using a young person to commit cannabis-related offences;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because the Cannabis Act already includes comprehensive restrictions on promotion;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because the government has already committed to establishing THC limits in regulations, which will provide flexibility to make future adjustments based on new evidence and product innovation;
respectfully disagrees with amendments 17(a) and 25 because other Senate amendments that the House is accepting would provide the Minister with expanded powers to require security clearances, and because amendments 17(a) and 25 would present significant operational challenges and privacy concerns;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 23 because law enforcement has an obligation to maintain evidence unless there is a risk to health and safety, and provisions currently exist in the Cannabis Act to provide compensation should evidence be disposed of and ordered to be returned;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 26 because mechanisms already exist to provide for public scrutiny of federal regulations;
proposes that amendment 31 be amended by replacing the text of section 151.1 with the following text:
“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted, including a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, on the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on Indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 32 because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the core objectives of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament and because the suggested amendment to amendment 31 provides for a review of the public health impacts of the Cannabis Act;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 33 because Parliament already has broad discretion to initiate studies of specific matters by parliamentary committees, and because the Bill already provides for a comprehensive review of the Cannabis Act, including a requirement to table a report in Parliament.
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-314/order-notice/page-14
Opinion: WITH CANNABIS LEGALIZATION AROUND THE CORNER, FEDS SHOULD HEED SENATE CALL FOR THIRD-PARTY OVERSIGHT: SENATOR LANKIN
https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/opinion/with-cannabis-legalization-around-the-corner-feds-should-heed-senate-call-for-third-party-oversight-senator-lankin/
Frances Lankin, P.C.
ISG - (Ontario)
Cannabis legalization is coming. Canadians voted for it. And Senators—who are now debating this important piece of legislation—should not stand in their way. That being said, I am convinced that continued oversight will be key to the success of legalization.
At this point, the case for legalization is clear—prohibition simply isn’t working.
The federal government has argued that a market for recreational cannabis would help reduce use among young people, improve the handling of public health issues, and work to eliminate the illegal market.
But developing sound public policy is no easy feat.
Ending decades of cannabis prohibition is riddled with complexities, both legal and social. Moreover, there’s little precedent to work with. Canada is only the second country to attempt cannabis legalization on a national level—the first being Uruguay, a country with the same population as Toronto.
As a result of this complexity, Bill C-45 was conceptualized by an independent task force, headed by Anne McLellan, a former deputy prime minister.
Since the legislation cleared the House of Commons, senators have pored over it—Bill C-45 was considered by six separate Senate committees, each inviting a host of subject-matter experts.
Here’s one of the main takeaways: our understanding of cannabis, from a public health perspective, is evolving, and will continue to evolve, after recreational cannabis is legalized. The science just isn’t conclusive yet. Committee witnesses reported that prohibition made proper research almost impossible.
In fact, new studies published over the course of the Senate study of C-45—particularly relating to impacts on the developing brain and mental health in general—call some of the more alarmist testimony into question.
As a result, Senators’ approach ought to be cautious, as opposed to restrictive, in our recommendations. By that same logic, senators are suggesting better oversight, monitoring and evaluation once the legal market is rolled out. As our understanding as a society of the effects of cannabis increases, better policy solutions will become clearer.
That’s why the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology recommended the creation of an independent task force, made up of content experts and tasked with monitoring the rollout of this legislation.
Moreover, access to non-partisan insight will benefit how Canadians, academics, and other countries come to understand this exceedingly bold step.
Senators and others have done their best to identify and improve on problem areas in this legislation; however, it would be naive to suggest it is perfect. It is reasonable to expect that we will learn more about the benefits and drawbacks of legalization through lived experience.
A third-party task force would serve as an accessible repository of the information we collect and promote the sharing of best practices in cannabis policy in a manner that is accessible to all levels of government.
By the same token, there is no justifiable reason for further delay, as some are calling for. Cannabis use is widespread in Canada. A new approach is clearly needed to help address the very real issues of substance abuse and mental illness which we often see associated with—though not necessarily caused by—cannabis use.
While there will surely be bumps along the road, I am convinced the government is serious about the public health approach set out in Bill C-45. However, this will only work if we can identify and adapt along the way. If Canadians can’t keep an eye on what we’re passing, the honest objectives of this bill may go up in smoke.
Frances Lankin is a senator representing Ontario. She previously served as Ontario’s Minister of Government Services, Minister of Health and Minister of Economic Development and Trade.
This article appeared in the June 5, 2018 edition of The Hill Times.
Order #86882x
MMPR, care to build/update one of those beautiful exponential growth charts on order #'s?
Question : What part will or has the Goldman /Canopy agreement played in the preparation for retail or other use facilities since the agreement was made?
I agree that Canopy will be spending $ to build facilities, double workforce and other Capital expenditures ( of course) , yet there is significant evidence that they are steadily becoming more efficient in the process. The IP in building greenhouses to scale that are pretty much guaranteed to be certified asap has great value. It’s a lot less expensive to build than to buy. Canopies acquisitions and partnerships these days are more towards vertical integration and diversification in the market, and their spending far less time and $$$ than other applicants for mere production space. Imo
This morning, someone put in an ask @ 67 for 400 shares.
So, Canopy got the #2 Brand and Registered patients in a Conservative Government environment. Also all the already certified facilities, for $60 million. Put that into today’s 3.5 billion acquisition perspective . IMO
For Your Consideration; my Wife and I have been impatiently perusing the Parliament of Canada webpages for updates on c-45(42-1) and we've found no updates so far. But what we have found are comparable bills to consider the timeline and procedures to date. For example, Bill c-44(42-1) completed 3rd reading on June 21, 2017 without amendments and received Royal ascent the following day on June 22, 2017.http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8874160
Bill c-49(42-1) on the other hand with amendments completed its 3rd reading on March 29th,2018, and did not receive Royal Ascent for ~two months until May 23, 2018, some 54 days later.
http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8945674
Today the house reconvenes and bill c-45 is not on the listed agenda for the day. We know the the ministers responsible for the bill are considering the bill and its amendments before it being considered in the house. As a point of reference to bill c-49(42-1), when I looked at the "Consideration of Messages between the Senate and the House of Commons" section, there was nearly a months delay before the house considered the Senate amendments, a few more days of considerations by the Senate, and then "The Senate does not insist on its amendments", followed by Royal Ascent the next day.. :
That’s a very big average number historically. I’m quite surprised as well. If that is in any way a new normal, it’s amazing. I’d like to see the 24hr avg tomorrow. Might put one in myself. This months financials should be very interesting. Inventory value with TWD BC , Vert is starting up... and the list goes on. Pencil Sharpening.
That was a very informative article. Thank you. A "{face off}"!? Just the Idea sounds intence and makes politics a little interesting; or does that make me a dweeb? Very good article. Id like to copy and paste my favorite parts:
Senators still see areas for improvement in pot legislation
CBC Radio · June 9
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/senators-still-see-areas-for-improvement-in-pot-legislation-1.4693760
Hi. A google search of the Quote from Minister Taylor:
Text of the Bill
Latest Publication
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-45/third-reading
Im combing the text for anything that says Provinces have to launch in unison?
Thanks, This would be much simpler with a reference link. I think the board would appreciate it. I highly doubt that the provinces have to do anything the other provinces do, when they have jurisdiction for licencing distribution and not the federation. But i could very well be wrong. please share a reference/link. Facts are much better than opinions
10 Day;30 minute RSI @ 25.77 @ 1115hrs. trading at $37.50. Im looking for a pickup into the afternoon. MACD 0.54 and volume is steady. IMO
There is no provision that the provinces must , should or will launch in Unison. More than Likely, the provinces that are ready to open either online or retail sales will do so , regardless of what other jurisdictions are doing. Canadian Provinces are autonomous after Federal Legislation.
This is a sell on News start to the day Day. A $1.27 CAD Drop on a Major positive fundamental development? Strong Hands know whats up
WEED Volume @ 0938 1,024,464
This is all day trading. Most of the Bid/Ask are no more than 1-2minutes old.
37.50 Bid
37.50 Bid
Woah! its a storm on the premarket bid/ask right now.. gonna be a wild open
Weed @ 0922 hrs
Bid: 125700 @ 39.22 Ask: 139100 @39.22
thank you, much shorter time line than 6 months then. maybe weeks? I hope they can hash it out swiftly. I have an anxiety over the final vote in the House , because that is the one that really matters.
WEED@ 0837HRS
BID: 82400@ 39.54 ASK: 79000@ 39.54
are you willing to take another round of ping pong? House rejects amendment (x), senate rejects bill, house must draft a new bill, senate writes new amendments, and so on? Rather than accept the amendments as recommended and review the bill in the house and senate as prescribed at 5 year intervals?
Hi Sinope. I just noticed that was a beer commercial. These rules are different for tobacco and beer and cannabis will have to be somewhere in between.
Like I said before, I certainly hope the House approves the bill with the amendments. For example, Manitoba and Quebec have said they want no home grow , ok. The next time there is a provincial election, the candidate that runs on a pro home grow position likely wins democratically, and voila! The public disclosure of shareholders concerns me because it is unprecedented and most likely violates privacy laws. I am semi relieved. Folks , remember, this is absolutely something to celebrate, but the most important vote, In the House of Commons to approve the bill as amended is on the Horizon. I’m honestly holding my breath for that. Hoping for the best.
They were announced by the speaker after the vote. I have no other source but my ear. Im sure the reporters are having their articles written and or edited for approval as we speak
56yay:*30nay:1abstention
Yays have it! The vote will take place at 2101 hrs...
I was commenting after listening to several senators bemoan the fact that the Legal age will be set Federally at 18. I agree with the science, especially the Pediatrics society, but the social hypocrisy to demonize Cannabis alone is striking, as if 18 year olds are air heads, or that we expect them to be. The best part of this will be public education and an end to the stigma.
Every Conservative Senator except Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston) has voted against the bill. Good for you Senator Reid for not being a sheep. I will not even consider voting Conservative as long as this is the type of representation they choose to deliver.
At 18 years of age in Canada: You Can Vote, You can buy a restricted Fire Arm, You Can Purchase and Drink Alcohol, You Can Attend University and Higher Education, You are considered an adult in the eyes of society and in the Judicial System, You Can Join the military and be tasked with controlling violence through killing other human beings, You can Be a parent or Adopt children, You can drive a care, you can be a member of parliament, all because your an Adult... but Cannabis, your to young to use and make a decision on cannabis use.
get the F~># outa here with that Bull s*[+
Hey Folks, Tune in if you'd like, it has begun.
http://www.cpac.ca/en/direct/sen6/168830/live-senate-audio-89/
http://www.cpac.ca/en/direct/sen6/168830/live-senate-audio-89/
Discussing time limits. 15 minutes for each speaker, or not? saying it might be unlimited? Oh Politics! Weeeeeee!
Normal speaking times, 45 minutes for a sponsor or critic. Tune In
. Will the Senate pass the cannabis bill tonight? No one knows for sure
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-vote-legal-cannabis-bill-third-reading-1.4694512
Indigenous senators have expressed concerns about lack of consultation with First Nations, Metis and Inuit
John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Jun 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 7 hours ago
After six months of fractious debate (and an almost fatal vote), senators will vote tonight on the government's landmark cannabis legislation — a bill that has been picked apart by senators determined to rework major sections of the Liberals' plan to end the prohibition on recreational pot use.
Senators of all political stripes have passed an eye-popping 45 amendments — an unusually large number of changes for a piece of government legislation.
Even with those Senate changes, there is no guarantee the bill will pass through the upper house tonight.
Government sources, speaking on background to CBC News, said a final count is still uncertain. Some Indigenous senators have raised serious concerns about the the legislation; they maintain consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit were woefully inadequate.
They could still vote as a bloc against the bill, depriving the government of eight crucial votes needed to overcome entrenched opposition from the 32 sitting Conservative senators.
There are 43 Independent senators — most of them appointed by Trudeau — 12 Liberal senators and seven non-affiliated senators.
A last-minute letter, written by Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott and Health Minister Ginette Petitpas-Taylor and delivered to Indigenous senators Wednesday, sought to assure them that the government is committed to addressing their concerns. That letter seems to have allayed some of the initial concerns; Indigenous senators opted not to make further changes to the bill Wednesday evening.
Indigenous leaders have been pushing for excise tax powers, a public health campaign to educate Indigenous youth about the potential dangers of cannabis, and a one-year delay in implementation.
If it's passed tonight at the third reading vote, the amended bill will head back to the House of Commons for final approval. It's likely the Liberal-dominated House will reject at least some of the Senate-approved amendments, leading to a possible standoff between the two houses of Parliament.
"We're confident with Bill C-45. However, we recognize that the Senate has done some work and I'm looking forward to seeing the recommendations that they bring forward," Petitpas Taylor told reporters Wednesday.
"[After the vote] we'll be able to evaluate what the results are and from there ... we'll be able to make a determination as to what our next steps are going to be moving forward."
As currently written, the bill stipulates the law does not come into force until a date fixed by an order of the governor-in-council — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet — meaning legalization is not automatic after the law passes.
Full legalization is not expected until August at the earliest, as provinces have said they will need eight to 12 weeks of prep work before they can start selling the product to consumers.
12 consequential amendments
While many of the Senate amendments are simply language tweaks, at least 12 make consequential amendments to the proposed legal framework.
The Senate's social affairs committee passed an amendment that would leave rules on home cultivation up to the provinces and even allow them to prohibit the practice altogether. That would mean Quebec and Manitoba — two provinces that have already said they want to ban home cultivation — would be able to do so.
Trudeau has thrown cold water on such a move, saying home cultivation is a key component of his government's push to dismantle the black market.
"The decision on home cultivation of up to four plants was based on logic and evidence and it's one that we will continue to establish as part of the federal framework," he said.
Independent Ontario Sen. Ratna Omidvar secured enough support for an amendment that would protect immigrants or refugees convicted of relatively minor cannabis-related offences from being barred from getting their citizenships, or from deportation.
The government will consider that amendment if the bill passes tomorrow, sources said.
Another amendment, from Conservative Quebec Sen. Claude Carignan, would establish a public registry of cannabis industry investors and directors in an effort to keep organized crime out of legal entities. Liberal Quebec Sen. Serge Joyal passionately supported such a move, saying many medical marijuana companies already have been infiltrated by criminal elements through offshore entities.
Under that amendment, a cannabis company's directors, officers, controlling parent corporations or trusts, and their directors, members and shareholders, would be listed in a public registry.
Critics of this change — which some Independent senators maintain was dumped on the Red Chamber without much advance notice or debate — say it raises serious privacy concerns. This sort of reporting does not exist for other publicly traded companies.
'Social sharing'
Another major amendment, this time from Independent Nova Scotia Sen. Wanda Bernard, would allow for so-called "social sharing" of cannabis so that teens two years apart in age — and/or parents of minors — could share cannabis without breaking the law. This mimics the legal framework for alcohol, which does not criminalize parents for sharing liquor with their children.
Conservative Manitoba Sen. Don Plett, however, has introduced a sub-amendment that would maintain parental sharing while imposing criminal sanctions for other forms of sharing, including socially-sharing with a minor who is close in age.
In the original version of the bill, minors would be able to hold up to five grams of pot so that young people can avoid criminal records for simple possession. The bill includes stiff criminal penalties for adults selling or sharing cannabis with anyone under the legal age.
Other amendments include a ban on certain promotional activities and some legal protections for police who seize cannabis plants from a residence.