Marco Mendicino

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, having spent the better part of 12 years as a former federal prosecutor in downtown Toronto, having worked on organized crime, having prosecuted both street-level drug trafficking and higher-level drug trafficking, I can say to him, with some credibility, that I hope the regime we are proposing right now is precisely aimed at exercising good judgment and sound strategy in how to manage this important file, the marijuana file.

Contraventions will still require police to exercise judgment, to expend resources, to lay tickets, and to prosecute those tickets in a court, which is yet to be defined by the hon. member or his colleague who is advancing the motion.

That is the flaw in creating a criminalization regime.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. colleague across the aisle is well put. The short answer is that this middle option, which he describes as his party recently endorsing at a convention, is strikingly similar to the decriminalization regime which has been put forward by the NDP member.

It is for those reasons that I do not believe that the middle option, as described by the hon. colleague, would either address the supply side of the issue or would address the scarce resources of law enforcement and the courts, which are currently under tremendous strain and pressure. There is no answer with respect to that. Most importantly, it does nothing to address our aim, our intent, to deprive organized crime of the illicit profits, the proceeds of crime, which they would continue to derive in any kind of regime where we did not address the actual quality of the substance that we aim to strictly regulate.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion brought by the hon. member for Victoria. He would know that I hold him in high regard even though he is not here, though regrettably I am speaking against his motion.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his gracious introduction. I will try to live up to his high expectations.

Let me start by reminding the House that our government has committed to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.

The Government of Canada intends to keep marijuana away from children and prevent criminals from profiting from its illegal trade.

We will take these steps with our eyes wide open. We will take a responsible approach. We do not want to rush or introduce precipitous changes which are unnecessary and could needlessly complicate the transition to a properly designed and regulated system of restricted access to marijuana. As the Minister of Health said in her recent speech to the United Nations, our approach to drug policy, including the legalization of marijuana, must have a solid scientific foundation.

I would like to use my time today to talk about some of what the science says about marijuana and health. There are both health risks and potential therapeutic benefits from marijuana. While new evidence of risks and benefits continue to emerge, we currently have more evidence about the harms, particularly the harms to youth. There is evidence of very real and negative health effects of marijuana consumption, particularly for young people.

The health risks associated with regular use of marijuana during adolescence and early adulthood, when the brain is still developing, include long-term harmful effects.

Regular marijuana use over time can lead to an increased risk of addiction, and therefore potentially longer lasting harms to mental functioning, such as deficits in attention, memory, learning, and even IQ. This is particularly true for use that begins in early adolescence.

There is evidence that regular marijuana use in early adolescence can have a negative impact on academic success and increase the risk of dropping out of school.

Early and regular marijuana use has also been associated with an increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, especially in those who have a personal or family history of such mental illnesses. These effects can cause profound problems for the individuals and their families. All of this is of particular concern given the high rates of use of marijuana among young Canadians.

On average, young people try marijuana for the first time at age 14.

Almost one in five students in grades seven to 12 had reported use of marijuana during the years 2012-13. Moreover, Health Canada's most recent Canadian tobacco, alcohol, and drug survey found that 11% of Canadians aged 15 or older reported having used marijuana at least once in 2013. When examined more closely, the data reveals that 25% of young people aged 15 to 24 years reported use in the previous year.

Young Canadians have an alarmingly high rate of marijuana use compared to youth in other countries.

A 2013 study by UNICEF found that Canadian youth aged 11 to 15 are the highest users of marijuana compared to their peers in other developed countries, and 28% of 15-year-olds in Canada reported using marijuana at least once in the previous year.

Despite the increased risks for adolescents who use marijuana, the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, conducted in 2015, indicated that the perceived risk of harm associated with marijuana use is lower than it was in the past.

In a talk at a recent conference, the Prime Minister cited the risks of marijuana use to the developing brain when he said that, “we need to make sure that it's harder for underage Canadians to access marijuana. And that will happen under a controlled and regulated regime.”

One of the main reasons why we want to move toward legalization is that it would allow us to properly regulate the use of marijuana and restrict access to it.

Canadians expect us to be responsible as we follow through on our commitment. We need to take the time necessary to get the approach right.

We are concerned that half measures such as the decriminalization that the hon. member for Victoria proposes will only send the wrong message to our young people and amount to a disservice to the public. On balance, decriminalization would amount to a disservice to the public for a number of reasons: First, it does nothing to address the supply side of the issue, leaving serious questions regarding the quality of the substance which we aim to regulate. Second, it does nothing to reduce the law enforcement and judicial resources that would be necessary to still prosecute certain contraventions under a new decriminalization regime. Third, and perhaps equally importantly, it would do nothing to stop the flow of proceeds into the pockets and accounts of organized crime.

As members can see, this is a complex issue, and many perspectives need to be considered in order to create a safe, secure, and tightly regulated system for the legal production and distribution of marijuana. That is why our government will soon launch a task force that will give us expert advice on how the legalization process should take place. The task force will include perspectives from many different sectors, including health, justice, law enforcement, and public safety. We want to take the time to hear from experts across a variety of fields who have an interest in this important issue. We must learn from the experience of other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana, and we must consider the implications of legalization for the provinces and territories.

The science on marijuana risks and benefits is evolving. Some clinical studies suggest that some strains have potential therapeutic benefits for some medical conditions, such as certain types of severe chronic pain. There is emerging evidence that some strains may perhaps be useful in treating epilepsy in children and adults. What is clear is that as the scientific evidence continues to advance, Canadians will need a system which strictly regulates the sale and access to marijuana, and ensures that Canadians have the information they need to make informed and responsible choices about their health.

We believe that legalization, regulation, and restricted access to marijuana is the best approach to protecting our children from both accessing marijuana and from criminal records that may negatively affect their lives. To that end, we will introduce legislation in the spring of 2017 to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and illicit profits out of the hands of criminals. We are convinced that this is the best way to protect our children and young people while enhancing public safety.

I am thankful for the opportunity to inform the House on this important government commitment.

For those reasons, I am against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, and I would encourage members to make the same decision.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague this morning for his impassioned speech. I actually think there is some common ground in his remarks this morning. On both sides of the aisle, we agree there are some harms that are associated with marijuana that we need to protect against.

I think we would also agree that the status quo is not working. As the hon. Minister of Health said recently before the United Nations, we cannot arrest ourselves out of this situation. As someone who has worked in law enforcement, I think that she speaks with great credibility when she makes that statement.

The member also said that he does not believe that there should be criminal sanctions on a go-forward basis. However, when one listens closely to his remarks this morning one has trouble finding how there is any clarity with respect to a solution to ensure that youth will not continue to be charged and that we will not reduce the harm principle, because there is nothing in his remarks that I heard this morning that addresses the supply side of the issue. Most importantly, there was nothing in his remarks that provided a clear solution when it comes to choking off the resources and the proceeds of crime, which will continue to be fed to organized crime.

[Justice, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Advocates within the legal community have repeatedly called upon the federal government to provide more legal aid funding. Adequate funding is essential to operating an efficient and effective justice system, and to protecting vulnerable persons and youth at risk of incarceration. Adequate funding is essential for access to justice.

Could the minister inform the House what the Government of Canada is doing to protect the charter rights of Canadians to a fair trial even where they cannot afford a lawyer?

[Republic Day in Italy, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Italy's Republic Day, which commemorates Italy's independence.

For over a century, Italians have successfully immigrated to Canada in search of a new life, and here they have found one. Whether through our skill, intellect, music, food, and yes our wine, Italian Canadians have contributed richly to the culture and prosperity of this great country.

Here in the House, it is a privilege to follow in the footsteps of many Italian Canadians who came before me, and to serve with colleagues now on both sides of the aisle who have Italian roots.

I invite them and indeed all members to join us for Italian Day on the Hill on June 15, when we will celebrate the heritage and values of over 1.5 million members of the Italian Canadian community.

Vive l'Italie. Vive le Canada.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I can speak with some first-hand knowledge about the importance of those members of the federal public service who have fought long and hard to achieve important workplace goals. These are not just goals that are an end unto themselves; they are goals that assist in the protection of our communities and the law enforcement of the land. These are completely legitimate goals and those that are consistent with their fundamental rights under the charter. Bill C-7 is all about ensuring that the RCMP members and reservists are able to avail themselves of their section 2(d) rights under the charter.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that we on the government side do not start with the assumption that there will be any duress or coercion. Rather we start with the assumption that employees and the RCMP membership will work collaboratively with their supervisors and upper management to achieve collective workplace goals.

The notion that a secret ballot is the only way in which free, fair, and full collective bargaining can take place is refuted by the example that is applied right across the federal public service. There are many other bargaining agents, both in the public service as well as beyond in the private sphere, where members stand and are counted in an open and transparent way. That is also consistent with what Bill C-7 proposes to enshrine.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that there are a number of things that the bill would propose to exclude from the realm of collective bargaining. As I said during the course of my remarks in favour of it, the exclusions that are proposed are very much consistent with those that apply to all of the other collective bargaining agents across the federal public service.

With respect to the RCMP, I also want to take a moment to emphasize that there are many central issues that relate to workplace collective goals that they will be permitted to bargain over. That includes things like pay, benefits, and leave. These are matters that are of vital interest to the RCMP membership. They have expressed a very strong desire to be able to negotiate on these issues and Bill C-7 will allow them to do just that.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I should say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Oakville North—Burlington.

I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-7, which is an important piece of government legislation intended to recognize and give life to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

I want to take a moment to reiterate some of the comments made by hon. colleagues with respect to the RCMP. It is a world-class police service. In some respects it is very unique. It is the only police service in the country that provides protection and law enforcement at the municipal level, at the provincial level, and at the federal level, as well as internationally. It provides important services and protection for our communities and our country with respect to national security and terrorism. It provides protection with respect to monetary enforcement and fraud. It provides day-to-day protection for many of the local communities, including first nations and indigenous communities, right across the country.

As a former federal prosecutor and having played an important role in law enforcement, I know that I speak on behalf of my constituents, and hopefully on behalf of all members in the House, when I thank them for the service and sacrifice they are prepared to make every day.

Bill C-7 represents a watershed moment in the history of the RCMP. As I mentioned before, I was the president of an association representing the working interests of federal prosecutors and Department of Justice lawyers. I know first-hand how important the collective bargaining process is to provide employees with meaningful input in pursuit of their collective goals.

The purpose of Bill C-7 is to accomplish exactly that fundamental objective. From the point of first principles, it will do so in the following two ways. First and most fundamentally, it will provide RCMP members and reservists with the freedom to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent. Of course, historically, all RCMP members were statute-barred from engaging in collective bargaining. However, the bill would remove that statutory prohibition, thereby giving members the opportunity to organize and associate under the auspices of a bargaining agent.

Second, assuming RCMP members and reservists choose to avail themselves of the opportunity to organize, Bill C-7 will also afford them with the ability to choose which bargaining agent will represent them. Once certified by the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, this bargaining agent will have the capacity to collectively pursue workplace objectives.

As RCMP members and reservists embark on these two key decisions, I want to underline that Bill C-7 will ensure that they are able to make their choice freely and voluntarily, and in a manner that is independent of management.

Consistent with these two principles, our proposed legislation will also provide for a single, national RCMP bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank, and reservists; require that the RCMP bargaining agent have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; and statutorily exclude certain officers, as well as other managerial and confidential positions, from representation, as is the case across the federal public service.

As I alluded to, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be designated as the administrative tribunal for matters related to RCMP member and reservist collective bargaining, as well as for grievances related to a collective agreement. In making recommendations for an appointment to that board, the chairperson of the board must take into account the need to have two members with knowledge of police organizations. Both the board and the Public Service Labour Relations Act would be renamed to reflect the addition of RCMP members and reservists to collective bargaining and to that inherent jurisdiction.

Finally, the bill before us today would establish independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses, with no right to strike.

These are some of the highlights of what Bill C-7 sets out to accomplish. By no means is my summary exhaustive, and indeed there are many other detailed amendments that will have to be enacted in order to create this new regime in which RCMP members and reservists will be permitted to collectively bargain.

Let me say a few words about the broader historical context in which Bill C-7 has come to be presented in the House.

The proposed act is, in effect, a legislative response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada issued more than a year ago in January 2015. In that year, at that time, the Supreme Court of Canada released a case called Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General). The court made a number of key findings flowing from that decision.

Among other things, the court struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as unconstitutional.

In addition, the court held that sections of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those regulations established the staff relations representative program as the labour relations regime for RCMP members. The aim of the program was that, at each level of hierarchy, staff relations representatives and management consulted on human resources initiatives and policies, with the understanding that the final word always rested with management.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criteria necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. RCMP members were represented by an organization they did not choose and did not control. They had to work within a structure that lacked independence from management. That process failed to achieve the balance between employees and the employer that is essential to a meaningful collective bargaining structure. Accordingly, the court held that this violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in particular the right to freedom of association guaranteed under section 2(d).

The court suspended its judgment for one year to give the government time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to introduce legislation in the House of Commons that would provide a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists. The government took steps, including consultations with RCMP members in the summer of 2015, to bring this framework into compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling.

I pause here to note that the consultation process was robust. Town hall meetings, teleconferences, and video conferences were conducted right across the country. A survey was also conducted, with thousands of members having participated and over 600 pages of comments received and reviewed. I believe that the input provided has been reflected in the drafting of the bill.

Bill C-7 passed second reading, as members know, and was given due consideration by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The government has the utmost respect for the parliamentary process and for the role of committees in our system of government.

I am happy to say that changes, which were recommended in light of witness testimony and written submissions, were both discussed and approved by the committee. I would hasten to add that while the bill does include exclusions with respect to collective bargaining, those proposed exclusions are very much consistent with the rest of the public service where collective bargaining is permitted.

I also wish to point out that, aside from collective bargaining, there are other avenues that RCMP members and the bargaining agent can access to pursue their workplace goals. For instance, the labour-management committee is a forum where employee representatives and management can discuss issues collaboratively around the process for conduct and harassment. Those issues can be discussed and strengthened in that forum. Safety concerns with uniforms that are worn by members of the RCMP can also be discussed in the occupational health and safety committee. There they can study the issue and make evidence-based recommendations.

I also feel it imperative to emphasize that Bill C-7 permits collective bargaining on issues that are related to more than just pay and benefits. Leave and conditions of work, for example, can be collectively bargained, as well as matters that pertain to the National Joint Council directives on workforce adjustments.

As members can see, the purpose of Bill C-7 is to usher in a new labour relations regime for the RCMP. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the suspension of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has now expired. As a result, this issue is of even more urgent importance.

Delaying the passage of this new legislation raises numerous problems. For one, there is currently an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in grievance processes, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, RCMP members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, making it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a coherent, national approach to labour relations.

Passing the legislation would avoid confusion and uncertainty among RCMP members. We owe this to the men and women of the RCMP, as has been expressed before the House, who protect Canadians on so many fronts.

The bill before us today gives the RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due and I know that all hon. members are committed to supporting the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. That is why I encourage all members to vote in favour of the bill.