Marco Mendicino

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we did listen. Just to be clear, no fewer than 86 speakers in this House have contributed to this debate. At committee, eight meetings were held, nearly 100 witnesses heard, and more than 115 briefs submitted and considered by the committee. Through its deliberations, the committee proposed a number of amendments, which are going to continue to be debated both in this House and in the other place.

When it comes to other jurisdictions, as I pointed out in my remarks, Washington was the only state. However, there are a number of other jurisdictions in the United States that have indeed sanctioned personal cultivation, because they, like us, understand that striking the right balance between personal use, which should not be criminalized, and keeping cannabis out of the illicit markets and out of the hands of our youth, is the best path forward.

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about the motions moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Standing Committee on Health in its study of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts. The committee heard from nearly 100 witnesses in five days. The committee's deliberations resulted in the adoption of 20 amendments that contributed to improving various aspects of the bill. These were informed by the insight and advice of the many witnesses, both domestic and international. I want to thank the members of the committee for this thoughtful review of the bill and its efforts to improve the proposed legislation.

Bill C-45 follows through on our government's commitment to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis in a way that protects Canadians, including our youth, and removes profits from the hands of criminals and organized crime. In my remarks today, I would like to further explain some of the reasons our government's approach to cannabis is the right one.

The motion put forward by the member for Sarnia—Lambton would effectively prohibit adults from cultivating any cannabis plants on their own property. This stands in sharp contrast to the approach proposed by our government, which would allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants on their property for personal use.

First, let me remind members of the House that our proposed legislation was informed by the sound and extensive advice of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which was chaired by the Hon. Anne McLellan. The task force consulted extensively with Canadians across Canada on how best to approach the legalization and regulation of cannabis. The members heard from youth, cannabis consumers, industry, indigenous communities, provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement, municipalities, regulators in other jurisdictions, public health and safety experts, and researchers, and the list goes on. Overall, the carefully weighed and diverse range of perspectives expressed during these extensive consultations suggested that small amounts of cannabis for personal use can be safely and responsibly grown at home by adults.

The proposed new framework for cannabis, which permits a small number of plants to be cultivated by adults on their own property, is consistent with the approach recommended by the task force. There is no doubt that our government's proposed approach, allowing a small number of cannabis plants to be cultivated at home, is balanced and supports the objectives of Bill C-45.

One of those objectives is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for minor offences related to cannabis. The current approach to cannabis has resulted in thousands of Canadians being charged, convicted, and sent to jail for possessing small amounts of cannabis, which indeed is counterproductive. Should the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton be adopted, Canadians would continue to be exposed to criminal charges for minor, non-violent offences. This would create an unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system, which is one of the reasons these motions should not be supported. We all know that criminal records can result in lifelong consequences by, for example, limiting employment opportunities.

Another key objective of the bill is to reduce illegal activities in relation to cannabis. Significant profits are generated by the illegal cannabis market every year, and some of this profit ends up in the hands of organized crime. Allowing adults to legally cultivate a small number of cannabis plants on their property would represent an alternative to the illegal market and should not be prohibited completely. Completely prohibiting personal cultivation, as proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, may undermine the government's ability to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities.

Setting a limit on the number of plants an adult may grow is a reasonable way to distinguish between responsible adults who wish to grow a limited number of cannabis plants at home and cannabis cultivated to supply and drive the illegal market. This is why other jurisdictions have taken a similar path.

As the federal framework has also been informed by international experience and best practices, I would note that in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal and strictly regulated, only one, Washington state, has maintained a prohibition on personal cultivation. Other jurisdictions, including Colorado, Oregon, and California, set provisions that restrict the number of plants that can be grown, such as the ones included in Bill C-45.

Permitting personal cultivation in limited amounts is consistent with our government's approach to allowing Canadians access to a legal source of cannabis while setting a clear threshold to help law enforcement identify criminal organizations that are supporting an illegal market.

To be clear, permitting personal cultivation of a limited number of plants would not mean open season for cannabis. On the contrary, the selling of home cultivated cannabis would still be a criminal offence, and growing more than four plants would be prohibited and prosecutable.

Finally, it is important to clarify that under the proposed framework, the provinces, territories, and municipalities would have the flexibility to impose further restrictions related to personal cultivation, beyond what is found in Bill C-45. This is an important point, as our government believes that they would be in a better position to assess the necessity and feasibility of such additional restrictions and their enforcement.

Through our government's proposed approach, Canadians would no longer run the risk of having a criminal record for possessing, sharing, or growing small amounts of cannabis. Canada is more than ready for a new approach, one that includes the ability of Canadians to grow small amounts of cannabis plants at home for personal use.

Again, the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton goes against the key objectives of the bill. Therefore, we recommend that all members of this House vote it down. It would also undermine our government's efforts to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities around cannabis. I am confident that the new legal framework we are proposing, including the current provisions of the bill that would allow personal cultivation of a small number of plants at home, is the best path forward for all Canadians.

[Aerospace Industry, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. Under the C Series program, the obligation for repayment remains unchanged. We we can count on Bombardier continuing to be an important contributor to the aerospace sector. This new partnership that it is exploring with Airbus will create jobs here on Canadian soil. This will benefit the community in my hon. colleague's riding. It will benefit all Canadians.

I am proud of all the work that the minister and his entire team is doing on this file.

[Aerospace Industry, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague.

This government absolutely believes in Alberta. There are many opportunities and jobs there. We approved three pipelines in Alberta, and that is a very good thing for Albertans.

I am pleased to respond to the comment made by the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock about the recent announcement of a strategic partnership between Bombardier and Airbus.

Canada is one of the largest aerospace manufacturing countries in the world. This industry contributes over $28 billion to our GDP and accounts for over 200,000 jobs in every part of the country.

As Canada's aerospace anchor firm, Bombardier is responsible for approximately one-third of Canadian aerospace manufacturing GDP, and has been Canada's top manufacturing R and D spender since 2012.

The proposed partnership by Bombardier with Airbus combines innovation with increased market access for a state-of-the-art Canadian plane that is world class. On the surface, we think it is a very positive step. Airbus and Bombardier's proposed partnership presents an opportunity to increase the ability of the C Series to access markets, meaning more production and more jobs right here in Canada, including in Alberta.

I can say further to the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock that any potential investment requires review by the minister of ISED under the Investment Canada Act to ensure that it will be of overall economic benefit to Canada, and the approval of competition authorities. Our government has been clear from the beginning that any strategic partnership between Bombardier and Airbus would be expected to bring measurable benefits to Canada, and strengthen ties between the Canadian and European aerospace industries.

In reviewing the proposed strategic partnership under the Investment Canada Act, the minister will consider the following factors, among others: the effect on the level of economic activity in Canada, including the utilization of parts and services produced in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, and product variety in Canada; the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic, and cultural policies; and, finally, the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

It is through these specific factors that the government will ensure that the proposed strategic partnership between Airbus and Bombardier brings concrete, measurable benefits to Canada and Canadians.

Bombardier is, and will remain, an anchor firm for the aerospace sector for Canada moving forward, and we will continue to seek to grow and promote Canada's world-class supply chain in the global industry.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who is a role model for every member on this side, for his thoughtful question.

In short order, one of the ways we are reinvesting in the public sector is by showing good faith when it comes to collective bargaining. The Conservative opposition spent 10 years eroding labour rights. On this side of the House, we believe in every single member of the public service who provides world-class service to Canadians.

I want to thank the hon. member for all of the work he does in that portfolio.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

I thank the member for his question, Mr. Speaker.

We are no longer at $120 billion; since we have increased our investments in infrastructure, we are now at $180 billion. Among others, these investments are funding projects in Montreal, Quebec, aimed at expanding and improving public transit. This is great news for the people of Montreal and Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work the Minister of Justice is doing on this side of the House to advance access to justice. She is doing so in several concrete ways. First, with regard to our judicial appointments process, we renewed that process so it would be open, transparent, and focused on merit-based appointments. In the last two years, we have appointed 130 judges. In my hon. colleague's province, I am very proud to tell her that she has received 19 new federal judges since we have taken office. These are extremely capable and well-respected individuals who reflect the best this country has to offer. Simply by having them on the bench, we are enhancing justice.

We are also providing additional training. We have topped up legal aid in the last two years. We are running two pilot projects on providing additional legal services and advice to victims of sexual assault so they can have access and have their day in court. All these things together are speeding up trials and enhancing access to justice.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, No. 2.

This bill includes key measures of our government’s second budget, which will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide all Canadians with more opportunities for success.

Before I move into the details of Bill C-63, I would like to provide a brief update on the strength of the economy as we reach the midpoint of our mandate.

In 2015, we assumed office in the wake of 10 long years of a Conservative government that had run multiple deficits, despite promises to the contrary; that had cut essential services, despite the needs of hard-working Canadians; and that had led to the weakest economic performance since the Great Depression, despite claims of being a champion of growth.

Over the last two years we have turned it around, thanks to some smart investments, which have included lowering taxes for nine million Canadians; creating the Canada child benefit plan that is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families, an average of $2,300 per family, and lifting approximately 300,000 children out of poverty; making enhancements to CPP, OAS, and GIS, all of which is improving retirement security and the quality of life for seniors; adding scholarships, bursaries, debt relief, and training for students in adult learning; and creating a national strategy on innovation and climate change to foster a competitive and sustainable economy.

When we take the cumulative effect of these measures and add them to the $180 billion we have earmarked for infrastructure spending to build better transit, roads, bridges, and clean water initiatives, we see concrete evidence of an economy that is heating up. Specifically, unemployment has dropped from 7.1% to 6.2%, the lowest since 2008. The debt-to-GDP ratio is forecast to drop below 3.1% this year, the lowest in nearly 40 years, on the way to and over the next five years. Half a million jobs have been created since we were elected, the best record in over 14 years. Together these indicators demonstrate how, in just two years, we took a workforce that was sluggish and underperforming and transformed it into the fastest growing economy in the G7, with an average of 3.7% GDP growth over the last four quarters. These results are ones that every member in this House should celebrate.

To keep the momentum going with regard to our economic performance, we are proposing a number of additional measures in this bill, which represents the second phase of the budget implementation act for 2017. Let me highlight a number of those now.

I will start with the measures to support the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This budget implementation act protects the rights of federally regulated workers when they request flexible work arrangements from their employers. Flexible work arrangements include flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leave to help employees manage their family responsibilities. These work arrangements benefit many women who continue to do the majority of unpaid work in the home.

Budget 2017 was the first budget in Canada's history to include a gender statement. It seeks to present a frank and honest analysis of the impact the budgetary measures will have on women. In addition, in its fall economic statement, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than planned.

What this means, in practical terms, is that for a single parent with two children and income of $35,000 the Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children.

Beyond strengthening the Canada child benefit, starting in 2019 we will also add $500 million to the working income tax benefit, sometimes referred to as the WITB. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. These two actions alone will boost the total amount the government spends on the WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits to current recipients and expanding the number of Canadians receiving this support, which is essential for those who need it the most.

Finally, our government is going to help small and medium-sized businesses by lowering their tax from 10.5% to 9%, effective January 1, 2018, and then again January 1, 2019. This will provide a small business with up to $7,500 per year in corporate tax savings to reinvest in and grow its business. These kinds of savings are crucial for small business to grow, which is the engine of our economy.

The steps taken to date are having a positive impact on our economy and for all Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong. As I said, there have been 500,000 new jobs created in the last two years, most of them full-time.

Growing the Canadian economy helps the government improve its record. Canada's financial situation remains solid, and the government will see to keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on its downward trend.

Every Canadian deserves to benefit from this economic growth. The government has lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians and has committed to ensuring that the tax system does not offer unintended benefits to the wealthiest Canadians or those with high incomes.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to vote for this bill that will benefit all Canadians.

[Action Group on Access to Justice, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about The Action Group on Access to Justice, which was established by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

In recent days, the action group has engaged the public on how to leverage innovation in the legal profession, to reduce systemic barriers, and to provide better access to justice for children living in poverty. In the last year, our government has supported these laudable goals by adding $2.7 million in addition to the $11.5 million in legal aid funding, in particular to help refugees and asylum seekers. In family law, we committed $107.8 million over five years to provide more mediation and more child services.

With respect to criminal law, we are modernizing our sexual assault laws and training so that victims can come forward knowing they will get the justice they so deserve.

In addition, we have made over 115 court appointments with more women, more diversity, and more talent on the bench. This has the effect of reducing court delays and improving access to justice. I want to commend the action group and the law society for all their work.

When it comes to access to justice in this government, they will always have a great—

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking against Bill S-230. I want to acknowledge that the bill is well intentioned and its sponsor in the chamber, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, is to be applauded for the aim of the bill, which is to address drug-impaired driving. Similarly, the sponsor of Bill S-230 in the other place, the senator from Mille Isles, must be recognized for having had the same laudable aim when he initiated this bill.

Our government understands the significant impact that impaired driving, including drug-impaired driving, has on the safety of our roads and highways. We are firmly committed to strengthening appropriate laws and enforcement measures to deter and punish serious offenders on the road. That is why, while we support the intentions behind the Senate public bill, our government has brought forth its own comprehensive regime to drug-impaired driving, which as we know, is reflected in Bill C-46. It is part of our approach and consistent with the work we are doing with regard to strengthening the strict regulation and legalization of cannabis.

The issues to be resolved in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat drug-impaired driving are complex and too difficult to address through amendments to this non-government Senate public bill. Bill C-46, on the other hand, fully addresses the concerns we have with Bill S-230. Bill C-46 would create one of the toughest regimes against drug and alcohol-impaired driving in the world. It would improve the detection and prosecution of drug-impaired drivers and build on existing measures by authorizing the police to use new tools to better detect drugs in drivers and by creating new driving offences for being over the legal limit for certain impairing drugs. Police would also be able to demand an oral fluid sample at the roadside if they suspect a driver has a drug in the body. This will be similar to the current method of testing for alcohol at the roadside with an approved screening device.

In this light, the Senate public bill's proposals are flawed and would be highly problematic for a number of reasons. Bill S-230 proposes to authorize police to demand from a driver an oral fluid sample on a drug screener at the roadside. The officer, following a lawful stop, first must reasonably suspect that there is a drug in the driver's body. Of course, the Criminal Code already authorizes police to demand a breath sample from a driver on an alcohol screener at the roadside if the officer suspects that there is alcohol in the driver's body.

It is easy, therefore, to understand the interest in a similar screening device for drugs. However, the reason why the alcohol screener is so very useful is precisely because we have the crime of “driving with a breath alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood”. A fail on the alcohol screener leads to further police investigation of a possible over-80 offence. However, unlike our government's Bill C-46, Bill S-230 proposes no similar legal limit for any drug. Therefore, the only charge available to police would be driving while impaired by a drug, which requires strong evidence of actual impairment. An oral fluid drug screener does not provide any evidence of impairment, but only the presence of a drug. For this reason, I believe the bill's usefulness is minimal.

To explain further, an oral fluid drug screener proposed by Bill S-230 could only be used, among other factors, to help police develop the reasonable grounds to believe that a drug-impaired driving crime has occurred. The drug screener result could not be used, as it is in the U.K., for example, to further investigate a drug legal limit offence because, until C-46 is adopted, there is no drug legal limit offence in Canada.

In the U.K., drug screeners are very helpful in investigating the legal limit offences for THC, the active chemical in cannabis, and for cocaine. These are the two drugs that are most prevalent in drivers and that are screened by the U.K. drug screeners. In contrast, under Bill S-230, a drug screener could only be used in Canada as an investigative tool in an investigation into driving while impaired by a drug.

Despite the fact that Parliament had enacted the offence of driving while intoxicated by a narcotic in 1925 and the offence of driving while impaired by a drug in 1951, drug-impaired driving investigations remained a huge challenge for police until 2008. This challenge of investigating a drug-impaired driving offence was not unique to Canada. In the 1980s, in the United States, a series of tests was developed that helped to show impairment. This knowledge was used to develop a standardized field sobriety test for screening at the roadside plus a drug-recognition evaluation, or what we commonly refer to as a DRE, which is a broader series of tests that is conducted at the police station.

In the early 1990s, some officers from British Columbia were trained in SFST and DRE and commenced using these tests on those suspected drug-impaired drivers who were willing to participate on a voluntary basis. In time, many drug-impaired drivers simply declined to participate.

In 1999, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that experts consider what tools might be used by police to better investigate drug-impaired driving, and SFST and DRE were put forward. After several unsuccessful attempts, Parliament in 2008 enacted authority for police to demand that SFST tests be performed by a driver at the roadside. Before making the demand, the police officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect there are drugs or alcohol in the driver's body.

The 2008 legislation also authorized the police to demand the DRE series of tests at the police station if the officer at the roadside had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was impaired by a drug. This belief is based on observations at the roadside, including the driver's performance of the standardized tests.

The DRE testing is conducted by a specially trained officer called an “evaluating officer”. It includes tests of the driver's balance and ability to perform divided attention tasks, and physical measurements of pulse, eye reaction to light, and muscle tone. If the evaluating officer at the police station identifies a drug as causing impairment, that officer may demand a bodily sample of urine, saliva, or blood to confirm or eliminate the possibility of the presence of a drug.

At best, under Bill S-230, a drug screener might help police form the necessary grounds to make a DRE demand. This would be a tool that could be used at the roadside, with or without SFST. Again, the police would be investigating a driving while impaired by a drug charge. This contrasts with Bill C-46 and experiences in the U.K., where drug screeners are very helpful in investigating the legal limit offences for THC and cocaine.

No one here will be surprised that drug-impaired driving is a growing problem in Canada. This trend is confirmed in the Juristat report entitled “Impaired driving in Canada, 2015” from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, published in December 2016. The number of charges for drug-impaired driving has increased fourfold or almost in the few years since the adoption in 2008 of new tools under the Code to help police investigate drug impaired driving.

As cannabis reform draws nearer, drug-impaired driving is a growing concern for Canadians. According to what I have been told, surveys show that the idea that cannabis does not affect driving is particularly widespread among young drivers. Young drivers may compare the effects that alcohol and cannabis have on their driving.

However, it is important to know that the human body absorbs, distributes and eliminates the two substances in very different ways. They also do not have the same effects.

We have a project that is being successfully completed on the government side. Bill C-46 looks very constructively at how we can use these new devices, like the oral fluid drug screeners, in the field. We are using the bill and the robustness of the regime it proposes to ensure that we keep our roads safe and, at the same time, reduce access to cannabis by our children.

As I have indicated, having drug screener legislation without drug legal limit legislation does not take us very far. Therefore, I intend to vote against Bill S-230. I support our government's far more comprehensive approach in Bill C-46 and encourage all members in the chamber to do the same.