John Maloney

[Child Poverty, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled to address the issue of child poverty, a phenomenon generally attributed to the third world.

Canada is not a third world nation and yet there are nearly 1.3 million Canadian children living in poverty, enough to form the fifth largest province. Think about it: shocking, incredible, terrifying, intolerable; yes, all of these.

Five years ago the Government of Canada in the House resolved to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among our children by the year 2000. Resolutions and objectives are not enough. Effective anti-poverty initiatives and immediate action are warranted, indeed demanded.

None will deny the necessity to eliminate the deficit as expeditiously as possible but let us strive to bring this deficit to zero in a compassionate and reasonable way. Let us not forget the children in poverty during this era of fiscal restraint. Our country's future depends on solving both problems quickly and fairly.

[Buffalo And Fort Erie Public Bridge Company Act, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position taken by the members of the opposition parties on this measure. The co-operation exhibited here is something to be commended.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Buffalo And Fort Erie Public Bridge Company Act, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak this afternoon on Bill C-81, an act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, which is the formal name of what we in southern Ontario and western New York State refer to as the Peace bridge authority.

I will give a little background on the Peace bridge authority. The authority was incorporated in 1923 under a special act of Parliament, following which the construction of the international bridge commenced in 1925 and was completed in 1927. An act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Company was enacted in 1934. It empowered the authority to acquire, hold and manage the property and assets within Canada.

The authority owns and operates the Peace bridge and has 10 appointed members, five Canadian and five American. The authority is profitable and has no outstanding long term debt. It is self sufficient with any profits being used to improve and maintain the facility.

The Peace bridge and this act is very important to Fort Erie, the Niagara peninsula, the province of Ontario and Canada as a whole. The Peace bridge is located at the Niagara River crossing between Buffalo, New York and Fort Erie, Ontario. It is the second busiest cross-border highway link between Canada and the United States. More than 300 million vehicles have crossed the bridge since it opened in 1927.

In 1994 the bridge carried nearly eight million vehicles. Over one million or 14 per cent of these were trucks. It is estimated that $65 million worth of trade crosses the bridge daily.

As a result of continued expansion and development of international trade and traffic between the province of Ontario and the eastern United States, passenger car traffic and freight truck and other commercial traffic over the Peace bridge into and from Ontario has steadily increased over the years. Commercial traffic increased to 975,000 vehicles in 1993, an increase of 5.8 per cent when compared to 1992. When comparing 1992 to 1991, commercial traffic increased by 11.6 per cent.

In recent years particularly increases in traffic flow have accelerated due to regional and economic factors and international agreements between the two countries, including but not limited to the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement and GATT. This has resulted in substantial increases in congestion on the bridge and the adjacent Peace bridge plazas.

Congestion is now at the point where it is not uncommon for traffic to back up on and sometimes across the entire bridge to and from Canada. This has resulted in substantial traffic tie-ups on the Queen Elizabeth highway and on local streets in Fort Erie as well as similar problems on the New York State thruway, the Peace bridge plazas and on local streets in Buffalo. The congestion problems presently being experienced on the bridge will only increase in the future.

To improve traffic flow, the authority plans to implement a 10-year $89 million capital improvement project called the gateway project. This project will have a positive economic impact on both sides of the border.

In Fort Erie alone over $58 million will be spent on improvements that include: $11.6 million for a new commercial facility for Canada bound commercial traffic which will house Revenue Canada's commercial customs operations, commercial brokers and freight package firms; another $25 million on a commercial vehicle processing centre for U.S. bound commercial vehicles; and another $4.3 million for a Canadian gateway complete with new customs booths that will serve as a landmark for residents and tourists entering Canada. It truly will be a gateway to Canada, a gateway to the province of Ontario and a gateway to my riding of Erie.

A further $17.6 million will be spent on bridge painting and structural improvements. The bridge is presently painted with a lead based paint which must be removed for environmental reasons. It will be expensive, but is very necessary.

On the U.S. side there will be upgrading of the traffic plaza and the Buffalo terminus to the bridge which will include a reconfigured plaza providing improved access to major highways and into downtown Buffalo.

It can be appreciated that these proposals will translate into short term construction jobs and long term administrative jobs with a tremendous economic spin off impact throughout the region.

The bill also allows for a borrowing increase for the current projects that I have just mentioned. The amendments to the act will allow the authority to increase its borrowing authority from $50 million to $100 million. The authority's reputable financial adviser has reviewed the financial plans of the authority and has indicated that it has the capacity to borrow this sum of money.

I would like to emphasize that there are no costs to the Canadian government associated with the amendments. Section 6 of the current act specifically protects the government from liability for the authority's debt in the event of a default. All borrowing costs will be borne by the users of this facility.

I was concerned with the user pay implications for my constituents as we now enjoy very reasonable bridge tolls on the Peace bridge. Tolls will have to be increased to fund the necessary bridge improvements. I am assured however that they will remain competitive with tolls charged at other international bridge crossings in the Niagara region and southern Ontario.

The Peace bridge authority is very sensitive to this issue. Presently the passenger tolls are the cheapest of all bridge crossings in the Niagara region. Owners of commercial vehicles will continue to pay slightly higher tolls than those charged at the adjacent crossings. They will benefit from reduced costs resulting from the shorter line ups at the border. The authority is fully cognizant that excessively high tolls would divert traffic to other crossings and will act accordingly.

I was also concerned about the debt servicing of these loans and the ability of the authority to meet its financial obligations. I have been assured that the authority's debt repayment plan is sound. The need for this government to satisfy its concerns on this issue and on the environmental impact are the reasons for an almost one year indepth study and the necessary delay of this bill getting to the floor of the House. This government has acted cautiously and prudently.

I was very concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed capital project as well, but my concerns have been satisfied. Pursuant to section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the bridge is not required to be subjected to a specific federal environmental assessment.

Given the potential impact of a commercial vehicle processing centre project on adjacent neighbourhoods in the town of Fort Erie and the fact that all transborder functions are a clear federal responsibility, Transport Canada completed an environmental screening of the commercial vehicle project in November 1994. The environmental screening determined that the commercial vehicle project may proceed as its environmental impact is either insignificant or mitigable with known technology. The authority has agreed to comply with the recommended mitigation measures. The commercial vehicle processing centre also meets all local, regional and provincial land use and environmental requirements which I think is very important.

Consequently, the decision to increase the borrowing power and transfer administrative powers will have no adverse environmental impact. Other initiatives under the gateway project will be assessed if need be in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The legislation before us today also deals with the issue of future requests for increases in borrowing. This legislation gives the governor in council the power to fix the authority's borrowing limit at an amount greater than $100 million if a need can be shown. We can avoid the need for future legislative amendments which become costly and time consuming and are basically administrative in nature.

This administrative change will give the Peace bridge authority additional flexibility to meet more immediate operational needs and future major capital requirements. The simplified procedure will be more responsive for the Peace bridge authority.

The reduced time required to authorize an increase in the borrowing limit will also be less costly for taxpayers. Any increases of this nature will still be thoroughly reviewed before authorization by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport. As a matter of note, such review would also be undertaken in the state of New York.

The act also provides for a transfer of authority. It is understood that the Minister of Transport has the prime responsibility in co-ordinating the role for federal policy on the international crossings. Of all the international bridge crossings, the Peace Bridge is the only one that comes under the authority of the Minister of Finance. This change therefore is an administrative rationalization. The transfer of legislative responsibility between ministers will correct what can be referred to as an administrative anomaly, as it is understood that the Minister of Transport again has the primary responsibility.

There are currently 24 international highway crossings between Canada and the United States. The Minister of Transport is directly involved in three that are federally controlled: the seaway, Thousand Islands and Blue Water bridges. Furthermore, some of these international crossings combine rail functions which are also the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.

It should be pointed out that Transport Canada assumes certain responsibilities associated with all 24 international crossings, such as policy directives, system planning, granting of construction and operating permits, environmental assessments and as previously mentioned, ownership in certain cases.

These activities are being co-ordinated and more often than not are being carried out jointly with our U.S. counterpart, the federal Secretary of Transportation, who shares similar responsibilities. In fact, in the United States all international crossing matters are dealt with through the International Bridge Act of 1972. It authorizes the United States president, secretary of state and secretary of transportation to negotiate, co-ordinate and sign international agreements in order to allow these crossings to be built, operated and maintained.

Therefore, transferring responsibility to the Minister of Transport will result in streamlining the relationship between the minister and the various bridge operators, whether private or public, dedicated public authority or provincial government. It will also facilitate the process of dealing with our U.S. counterparts. As well it will indicate to Canadians that this government is committed to efficiencies in public administration.

Henceforth, both the New York state and U.S. federal governments will be able to deal more effectively through the Minister of Transport. The minister and his U.S. counterpart meet regularly, particularly as a result of the North American free trade agreement, in order to facilitate the transborder movement of people and goods. International crossings are often a priority topic at these meetings.

The transfer of responsibility to the Minister of Transport will indicate to the various bridge operators that the current Transport Canada policy of promoting and supporting decentralized commercialized operations will be maintained and enhanced.

I will not say that these initiatives have been without their opponents who legitimately questioned debt servicing concerns and the environmental impact on adjacent neighbourhoods, especially as it relates to noise and pollution. In particular, the residents whose homes will border on the commercial vehicle processing centre had some very real concerns. I am satisfied that these concerns have been met.

I urge the authority notwithstanding to take its role as a community partner very seriously and to be mindful of its responsibilities to these community concerns. To date it has met these responsibilities and I am confident it will continue to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that these upgrades and new facilities are urgently required. The planned improvements of the gateway project will speed the movement of traffic, particularly trucks, across the bridge. Streamlining the flow of bona fide cross border traffic is in keeping with the more liberalized international trade environment under the NAFTA. The importance of cross border trade in our community is enormous. The benefits of these improvements will be felt throughout the region, throughout the province and throughout our country.

[Buffalo And Fort Erie Public Bridge Company Act, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties. I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to deal with the bill this afternoon at second reading, at committee of the whole and at third reading.

[Emergency Personnel, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns respecting the current status of infectious disease notification in Canada. Without regard for their personal safety firefighters, police and ambulance workers routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary field conditions on patients they know nothing about. As a consequence they can be exposed to an increasing variety of dangerous, contagious and sometimes deadly diseases.

Is it asking too much that these brave men and women be entitled to notification about possible exposure to an infectious disease? Is it asking too much that our emergency response personnel themselves be given the right to early treatment? Is it asking too much that their family, friends and literally everyone they come into contact with be protected from further transmission?

The answer is obvious. I implore the government through Health Canada to set the standard for uniform notification protocols in conjunction with those provinces that have endorsed national guidelines. The confidentiality of patients can and will be protected. The health of our emergency response personnel can and must be protected.

Canadians are entitled to nothing less.

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the House of Commons today on the issue of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and Transfer of Offenders Act, tabled by the hon. member for Cambridge.

There is no doubt that Canada is one of the most welcoming countries in the world for those emigrating for family or business reasons and for those fleeing persecution around the world. Because of this tradition, the people of Canada were awarded the Nanson medal by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, a recognition of the entire nation's outstanding efforts on behalf of refugees.

We all want to preserve this tradition. However, it has become apparent in the past few years that a system that was designed to be fair, compassionate, and open became overburdened with the number of applicants waiting to come to Canada. The system showed signs of breakdown. Cracks began to appear. Some immigrants and refugees were being processed who perhaps should not have been. Many immigrants who had arrived as youngsters may have found themselves in their teens or early twenties in the midst of a recession and perhaps with a lack of opportunities.

Any society during tough economic times sees the crime rate rise as people become frustrated. Several high profile horrendous crimes that were prominently reported in the newspapers involved non-citizens. I think of the tragic shooting deaths of constable Todd Baylis and Georgina Leimonis. Canadians began questioning what had gone wrong. Why had these young men with lengthy criminal records slipped through the cracks?

When this government was elected it promised to make homes and streets safer places for all Canadians. In response to our promises and to address the problems demonstrated by these high profile crimes, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-44. This bill took steps to eliminate the cracks that had previously appeared in the immigration and deportation systems.

My hon. colleague from Cambridge has been moved by the letters and interventions from constituents in his riding, young

and old alike, and has therefore taken the initiative to learn what could be done and to respond with legislation on the issue.

The highlights of Bill C-316 can be summarized as follows. The proposed bill aims to improve the way in which deportations of violent offenders who are non-citizens are carried out. The bill enables the court, in addition to any other sentence, to order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years. The bill accelerates the deportation process, thereby saving Canadian taxpayers much money.

The bill does not apply to anyone arriving in Canada prior to 16 years of age as long as that individual remains free of criminal convictions for a period of five years. We must, as Canadians, take responsibility for some of those who are raised in our society.

Foreign offenders could be returned to their country of origin if reciprocal conditional release conditions existed and if so ordered by the courts. Currently an offender is transferred if he agrees to be transferred.

I too have heard from constituents on this issue. Many are outraged over the senseless killings of constable Baylis and Ms. Leimonis. I support the general intent of this bill and I believe it to be in keeping with both our immigration and justice policies.

I do have some concern that the dependants of individuals would also be subject to removal. This perhaps could be an area that could be revisited on a case by case basis as the practical implications are considered.

It is my understanding that provisions allowing the judge to order the removal of offenders is something that may be considered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at some future time. While some of our hon. colleagues have difficulty with the constitutionality of this provision, some say that such treatment would discriminate between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens are, under the law, subject to removal in any event under the current immigration policies. This bill only provides for an expedient and cost efficient alternative as to who might make this removal order. I do recommend, however, that safeguards be built in as to the ability to avoid plea bargaining to avoid the removal order. I would like to see some provisions that the removal order not be dealt with in conjunction with the sentence.

I certainly support the addition of the clause that provides for exception for those offenders who entered Canada before the age of 16 years and who have been free of criminal conviction for five years. This is fair and in keeping with our immigration policy principles. I refer to the situation of Mr. Clinton Gayle, who came to Canada at a young age and was under a removal order. It was over two years old. While Mr. Gayle may have been socializing in Canada, it was determined that he should be removed. These removal orders must be dealt with immediately.

The bill before the House does not deal explicitly with the issue of enforcement and process. One can conclude that if an offender is in custody and has been sentenced and a removal order made, the offender will not be released back into the community. Deportation of undesirables who have no respect for the laws of our country and who jeopardize our safety and security should be removed. This should be done swiftly, surely and immediately.

[Health Care, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our health care system is one of Canada's proudest and most envied achievements. Every Canadian has a right to receive the care he or she needs when sick, regardless of personal circumstances. It is an affirmation of Canada's commitment to human dignity.

The constituents of Erie were concerned about the future of the health care system. Unlike Bob Rae's government, the Ontario Liberals have a plan to protect the province's health care system.

I am pleased to see that today Ontario Liberal Lyn McLeod announced her vision of health care for the province, including the establishment of a health research and development council, a call-in care pilot project, expanded 911 and restoration of health care coverage for out of country emergency services.

Medicare was introduced and developed by a succession of Liberal governments, providing a tangible example of the commitment of all Liberals to compassionate public policy.

The government also has plans for the well-being of Canadians. We will not withdraw from or abandon the health care field. We will not accept the notion of a two tier health care system, one for the rich and one for the poor, one for the advantaged provinces and one for less advantaged provinces.

Thanks to the government and the plans of Lyn McLeod's Liberals, Erie constituents can put their fears of a Bob Rae health care system to rest.

[The Environment, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the grade 5 students of William E. Brown Elementary School in the village of Wainfleet in my riding of Erie ask that the government ban the use of lead shot in Canada.

Lead shot is used for hunting waterfowl, upland game birds, small mammals and for trap or skeet shooting. This results in 4,125 tonnes of lead being discharged into the Canadian environment each year. Lead is a highly poisonous metal that when ingested by birds or animals as they forage for food leads to a slow and agonizing death, a death that is totally unnecessary.

The use of lead shot is one more source of environmental contamination that is unacceptable, especially when there are non-toxic alternatives available, such as bismuth shot. It is my understanding that lead shot has already been banned in the United States and some European countries and that some non-toxic shot zones have been established in our own country.

I ask the Minister of the Environment to ban the use of lead shot throughout Canada. Let us follow the lead of these students by thinking globally and acting locally. Preserve our wildlife, simply ban led shot.

[The Environment, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to draw attention to an event that will take place in the city of Hamilton this weekend.

Canada's Minister of the Environment is hosting a meeting of environmental ministers from the world's most industrialized countries, the group of seven. Also in attendance will be senior environmental officials from the European Commission and the United Nations.

The two days of discussions will focus on how G-7 countries can continue to work together to improve the world's economic and environmental health.

I would like to congratulate the minister on her fine work as Minister of the Environment both in Canada and internationally.

I am happy that the subjects under discussion will include, among other things, species conservation, climate change and international management of toxic substances. Discussion will also centre on how we as industrialized countries can encourage such organizations as the World Bank and the United Nations to take a more environmentally sensitive approach to development.

I urge the minister to use this conference to encourage all countries, including Canada, to live up to the commitments made at the Rio conference.

It is essential that when the leaders of the G-7 countries meet in Halifax this June, the concerns raised and discussed at the environment ministers conference this weekend are addressed.

[Health Care, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed by news reports suggesting that a youth in Edmonton

had been refused a place on a waiting list for a lung transplant apparently because he has Down's Syndrome.

Terry Urquhart, a Special Olympics winner, has led a positive and fruitful life within the parameters of his disability. This child and others like him are not to be denied the right, and it is a right, to the same medical treatment and procedures that any other Canadian is entitled to. I was very pleased to learn the hospital has reversed its decision and I compliment it for that.

I am very alarmed about possible implications of this incident on the lives of the disabled. I call on the decision or policy makers in similar situations to immediately reconsider such ill conceived positions. I call on the health minister and the justice minister to ensure this is done.

Let there be no misunderstanding, let there be no mistake, Canada does not have one set of rules for persons with disabilities and another for those without. All Canadians are equal. Discrimination in any form is unacceptable.