John Maloney

[Education, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. immigration and naturalization service has decided that education is not a valid reason for Canadians to cross the U.S. border.

Beginning May 22, part time Canadian students were delayed at the border or denied entrance. Students who began classes prior to May 22 will be allowed to finish their current course but only after stopping at the border to fill out an I-94 application each and every time they cross. What is more troublesome is that part time students enrolled after May 22 will not be allowed to cross the border for this purpose.

In light of September 11, we appreciate that stricter U.S. policies are being implemented in relation to student visas. However an absolute prohibition of border crossing for part time students is simply overkill. This INS policy has the potential to undo a beneficial arrangement enjoyed by hundreds of Canadian students and American schools for decades.

I urge the United States to allow an exemption for part time Canadian students. Education is a precious resource. George Bush must not deny Canadians this opportunity.

[The Economy, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, hockey is not the only reason Canadians are happy to turn on their televisions. There are continuing positive reports on the Canadian economy.

Our employment levels are among the best in the world. Statistics Canada reports that, as of April, the unemployment rate was down to 7.6% with 207,000 jobs created so far in 2002, most of them full time. That is nearly 2.4 million jobs created since 1993.

Canada is the only G-7 country expected to post a balanced budget this year. Further, the IMF and the OECD predict that Canada will post the strongest level of growth among G-7 countries this year and next. Moody's also has confidence in our future, giving Canada a triple A bond rating, the highest possible level. Canadians continue to enjoy very low interest rates. This means more savings for families renewing mortgages or making big ticket purchases and for businesses seeking loans.

It is very evident that the policies of the government have spearheaded this economic growth. Canadians can head on vacation this summer secure in the knowledge that our economy is in good hands.

[National Police Week, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage all hon. members to join in the recognition of National Police Week in Canada from May 12 to May 18.

National Police Week allows Canadians to show their appreciation for the tremendous job being done by members of police forces across Canada in protecting our homes and communities.

The government understands the importance and role of Canada's police. That is why we have made significant investments in the RCMP to fight terrorism and make Canadians safer. Especially in the difficult months since September 11, the men and women of Canadian law enforcement rose to answer the call of duty and continue to make us proud.

During this week all Canadians are encouraged to reflect on the role played by Canadian police officers in making Canada the safe country that it is.

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to get up this evening to speak. I compliment the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley for her interest in this area. It is an area of concern for many Canadians, especially those who are interested in wildlife, who are perhaps very vulnerable, as well as those who are interested in the environment.

We have heard of situations offshore and international situations. People who return to the country do not realize the risks that they take by bringing in pieces of material that under our laws are illegal, such as ivory, conch shells, and alligators. This law deals with domestic problems in selling wildlife, et cetera.

[Species at Risk Act, May 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is plenty of strength in the enforcement and prohibition sections of the proposed species at risk act. However, as I said earlier, protecting critical habitat will only work when we stress co-ordination, parliamentary action and inclusion. That is what Canadians do best.

For these reasons I cannot support any change to the bill that removes the incentive of stewardship as the first course of action to protect critical habitat.

The coercive approach to protecting critical habitat has already proven to be unworkable in many situations in the United States. We want to avoid species disappearing because they are pawns in protracted political disputes or costly court battles. We are taking care of matters in our own backyard of course. What I mean is the federal government has a responsibility to protect critical habitat in its jurisdiction.

The government is proposing that the species at risk act provide automatic protection to any critical habitat in a national park, a marine protected area, a migratory bird sanctuary or a national wildlife area, once it is identified by experts in a recovery strategy or action plan. For critical habitat anywhere else in federal jurisdiction, we are proposing that the proposed species at risk act require a competent minister to recommend protection if a critical habitat is not protected through stewardship or other federal legislation within 180 days of being identified in a recovery strategy or action plan.

We also want the bill to require ministers who are authorized under other federal acts to issue permits or licences for an activity to consider whether those activities could result in the destruction of critical habitat prior to the issuing of the permits or licences.

In summary, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the results of nine long years of debate on habitat protection have brought us firmly down on the side of the co-operative approach backed by strong prohibitions. This is a Canadian solution. It is the Canadian way. For rural Canada, it is the most effective solution.

Bill C-5 is effective legislation that will help protect wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for the recovery of species at risk. It is time to enact these solutions. Let us get on with the job. Let us protect our species at risk now and forever, for ourselves, for our children, for our grandchildren and for all who will come after us.

[Species at Risk Act, May 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, some rather important themes have been running through the debate on the proposed species at risk legislation. They are themes, some of them rather subtle, that we must recognize.

First and foremost, and perhaps the area where we see the sharpest divide, is over a coercive approach versus a co-operative approach. We looked at both and studied both. We talked to experts and to people in other countries. We talked to conservationists and to our aboriginal peoples. We listened to everything that was said.

We looked at all this in the Canadian context, within the traditions and laws that support Canada's constitution. What we found, and the premise on which the legislation is designed, is that the key to effective species at risk legislation is the support and co-operation of those Canadians who depend on the land for their livelihood. It is as simple as that.

We have prolonged this debate while the same things are said: It is too strong or it is not strong enough. Who is right? Neither.

Because the bill has co-operation as the first approach, underscored by strength, it is truly Canadian. It is time now to pass the bill in the House and send it on to our colleagues in the other place.

Who has helped us decide co-operation is the most workable approach? All Canadians have helped us to decide. In some way we are all connected to the land but it is even more so for Canadians who live in rural Canada. The land is their livelihood. It is their past and future. It is at the very core of their lives. It is the rural Canadian who plays such a huge role in the protection and recovery of species at risk in so many different ways. Many of these people are stewards of the land already and have been for generations. They know the importance of conservation and of sustainable activities. They are partners and they are allies.

I would like us to remember that as we consider the issues of critical habitat connected to the proposed species at risk legislation. It is here that the co-operative approach is crucial because it is already working. It has already been successful, especially for rural Canadians. We must not undermine this and we will not undermine this.

The vast majority of lands in Canada are under provincial and territorial management and private ownership. If we want to stop the destruction or degradation of habitat, then partnership and joint actions are crucial.

This is about working with the provinces and territories, with private landowners, conservationists, local authorities, aboriginal peoples, farmers, foresters, fishermen, ranchers and voluntary organizations.

There is plenty of strength in the enforcement and prohibition sections of the proposed species at risk act. Protecting critical habitat will work best, in fact it will only work when we stress co-ordination, complementary action and inclusion. That is what Canadians do best.

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Burma's military regime announced that Nobel laureate and National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be released from house arrest. Will the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific share with the House Canada's reaction to this news and inform us how it will affect our relationship with Burma?

[Volunteer Award, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this is National Volunteer Week. Last year, during the International Year of the Volunteer, the Minister of Human Resources Development launched the Thérèse Casgrain Volunteer Award to recognize the valuable work of Canadian volunteers.

Could the minister inform the House on the status of this award and who the recipients are this year?

[The Environment, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of three recent environmental initiatives that will positively impact my riding of Erie--Lincoln.

Under the Great Lakes sustainability fund the Niagara River will benefit from two restoration projects totalling $80,000. The first program is the Niagara River area of concern fish barrier project which will improve fish habitat by eliminating physical barriers to fish migration within the Niagara River watershed.

Under the agricultural diffuse source control strategy implementation landowners will work with conservation authorities to reduce water pollution and soil erosion from rural properties.

Efforts are also being made to save the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake under the habitat stewardship program for species at risk.

I welcome municipal and citizen project partnerships with the government. Protecting our environment is vital to the goal of healthy and sustainable communities. We are all stewards of the environment.

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at first glance the goal of Bill C-344 to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis would seem a straightforward one.

As hon. members have been told, under Bill C-344 simple possession of cannabis would be dealt with under the Contraventions Act rather than the criminal justice system. The Contraventions Act provides an alternative to the summary conviction process prescribed by the criminal code. It simplifies the process for prosecuting offences against federal statutes and regulations that would otherwise be prosecuted under the criminal code.

Supporters of Bill C-344 believe removing the criminal penalty would ease the burden on Canada's criminal justice system. They maintain that any savings that result could be directed to prosecuting dealers and traffickers of illegal drugs.

Easing the burden on Canada's criminal justice system is an admirable goal. However it is important to note that Bill C-344 would necessitate the creation of a new administrative regime. We need look no further than at one of our closest friends, Australia, to see that such administrative regimes can produce unexpected and often unwelcome results.

Canada can learn from the Australian experience for a number of reasons. The types of drugs and their usage rates are much the same in both countries. We have similar legal and parliamentary systems. If we look closely at the Australian example it becomes clear that decriminalizing cannabis in Canada would not be as simple or straightforward as some have indicated.

Two Australian states, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, have converted the simple possession of cannabis into a civil offence through what is called a cannabis expiation notice system. In both states the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use is a non-criminal process. Offenders may be fined up to $150. If they fail to pay within 60 days they are required to go to court.

While there has been no evidence of any dramatic increase in cannabis use in the two states since they introduced the expiation system in the early 1990s, officials have encountered unanticipated results regarding enforcement practices. For example, despite the fact that cannabis use remained at relatively stable levels after the expiation system was introduced, the number of offences rose disproportionately. The increase came about largely because it had become procedurally easier for authorities to fine rather than arrest.

The focus of enforcement also became an issue. Males, often of lower socio-economic status or aboriginal origin, were being charged more frequently than others. The expiation system had widened the net and increased representation of marginalized groups. The trend was disturbing for a number of reasons. Most noticeable was that the majority of the males lacked the financial means to pay their fines within the 60 day period. Almost half those who received expiation notices failed to pay their fines within the required 60 days. As a result they found themselves before the courts anyway, in danger of acquiring the very criminal record decriminalization was designed to eliminate.

Both states have been forced to take action to address the situation. In Western Australia payment options have been introduced. Clearer and more detailed information is now available so people receiving expiation notices are fully aware of the process and its consequences.

I believe hon. members will agree that it is clear Canada will face similar risks unless we insist on an informed and prepared approach to the issues. Both Australian territories had relatively sophisticated mechanisms to help them identify potential problems in the expiation system. We lack similar data in Canada. We would need to develop means to disseminate information on any new system we might introduce. We would need to find a reasonable alternative to the use of fines. This alone should encourage us to proceed cautiously and allow the parliamentary committees examining the issue to complete their valuable work.

There is another area in which Bill C-344 may be insufficient. It would maintain the link between consumers of cannabis and suppliers of cannabis, suppliers such as organized crime. Australian legislators addressed this important issue by decriminalizing the personal cultivation of small numbers of plants.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians may be making an informed decision to smoke cannabis. If we decriminalized cannabis would we provide a decriminalized supply as they do in Australia or would we continue to drive cannabis consumers into the arms of organized crime? Put another way, would we allow organized crime to continue to profit from trafficking in marijuana or would we make a serious attempt to diminish its profits?

There is also a more practical difficulty with Bill C-344. That is the fact that some provinces have not yet agreed on a memorandum of understanding with the federal government concerning the Contraventions Act. Furthermore, we need to know about our options regarding decriminalization and legalization. A wide range of responses is possible, including maintaining the current situation of criminalizing possession only, without jail. In this regard the findings of the parliamentary committees now examining these issues promise to be very helpful. Finally, we need more information, relevant information, in a number of areas: for example, information about the number and demographics of cannabis users in Canada. This kind of baseline data is essential in evaluating any new system or designing any effective prevention efforts.

Surely all these factors make it clear that Canada needs to acquire more information and be more prepared before we can seriously consider the decriminalization of cannabis.

Even as we go about gathering that information we should not lose sight of the fact that decriminalization is merely a tool, not an end in itself. For example, the health and social problems related to cannabis use will not go away by simply reducing the penalty for possession. The truth is that issues such as driving while impaired and poly-substance abuse such as cannabis and alcohol will remain with us. This was a concern of the justice committee during our review of the impaired driving legislation. Surely it is clear to all members that we must consider the implications of decriminalization and be fully prepared to address these implications before we move ahead with the decriminalization process.

As a consequence and in light of my comments, I would propose the following motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words above the word that and by substituting therefor the following:

That Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana), be not now read a second time, that the order for second reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper and the subject matter be referred to the Special Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs.