John Maloney

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, indeed the issues which the member touched on in the latter part of his question about human trafficking and the increase in laws that perhaps liberalize or legalize prostitution, unfortunately we are not going to be able to travel to those jurisdictions to see it first hand as opposed to reading it on paper. We will not have an opportunity to cross-examine and certainly I think our report will suffer because of it.

Notwithstanding that, the issue of prostitution is very complex. It is an issue of poverty and homelessness. It is an issue of exploitation of women and the physical, sexual and psychological abuse of women. Certainly more reprehensible is the exploitation of young women, teenagers and children.

It deals with health issues and the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It deals with the migration of women, the smuggling of women. It deals with drugs and drug addiction. It is a whole microcosm of minor issues that force women into economic prostitution, where it is the end of the month and they do not have sufficient funds to feed their children or pay the rent. It is issues of mental health for women, as well as men and young boys. It is not just a female problem. It is a male and female problem.

Often we do not address the other half of the equation. It is a two part philosophy. There is a male element in this too. They are the johns, the clients, who could be an individual's son, father, uncle or brother. Similarly the sex workers could be someone's mother, daughter, grandmother, aunt or sister. They are human beings with a lot of problems. Most individuals do not wish to be there. They feel they are trapped and they cannot get out because of criminal records. They certainly would not want that life for any of their children.

It is a very complex issue. We commenced hearings here in Ottawa in February. We will continue our hearings perhaps until the end of June. We have crossed Canada consulting people and organizations that deal with sex workers. We have spoken with many sex workers, the high track, as they call it, the low track, which are the street workers, as well as escort services. That is another area. We see the ads in the local newspapers and in the yellow pages, but we do not hear much about them. People say that perhaps that is okay.

In dealing with these individuals there is a certain prejudice that these women are trash so they are not worthy of consideration. That is simply not the case. For those who feel that way, shame on them.

We have had cross-country consultations and we will continue with our study, even though we have been restricted a little because of the denial of travelling to those areas that have different approaches. In Sweden they do not criminalize the sex workers themselves but they go after the clients, the johns. Amsterdam and Utrecht in the Netherlands have a more liberalized approach. In England it is lawful for individuals to operate in their own homes. New Zealand introduced a year ago a new law legalizing prostitution.

People perhaps do not realize that in Canada today the actual sex act between consenting adults for money is not illegal. What is illegal is the asking for that service, which is solicitation, pimping or procuring, that is, obtaining women or men to prostitute themselves, or having common bawdy houses where this activity goes on. Transporting someone to a bawdy house is a crime, but the actual sexual act between consenting adults for consideration is not unlawful.

I could go on forever on this issue. We have learned a lot. I have heard the snickers and chuckles too. Shame on those members.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak to one of the serious challenges we face in fighting organized crime and terrorism, both in Canada and beyond our borders.

The world of the 21st century is one where borders are no longer barriers to doing business and where capital is increasingly mobile. Open global markets, coupled with new technologies, enable individuals and businesses to buy and sell products and services in a matter of minutes, sometimes a half a world away.

While international trade and technologies bring many benefits to Canadian society, there is a dark side to globalization. Organized crime and terrorism feed on this virtual elimination of political and financial boundaries and they are growing exponentially by exporting the same international and technological resources that support legitimate social and economic activities.

Threats to Canadian security today come in all shapes and sizes, from every continent on the planet. They can include terrorism, organized crime syndicates or cyberstalkers preying on our children. Anyone doubting these threats need only turn on the TV news at night.

There is a new level of sophisticated collaboration among criminals and among terrorists. Organized criminal groups now work together to minimize risk and maximize profit. Indeed, their activities are defined by profit, not territory, and by innovation, not tradition.

New illicit profit-making schemes such as identity theft, email fraud and Internet child pornography have exploded in recent years. International terrorist groups have also shown how frighteningly effective their modern organizations can be, most tragically through the events of 9/11. These groups are globally networked, highly adaptable and innovative in their approach.

Clearly, modern crime and terrorism require modern security, intelligence and law enforcement solutions that not only keep abreast but stay ahead of these threats.

I can assure the House that the RCMP is on the front lines of this campaign. Fighting organized crime and terrorism are both considered strategic priorities within the force. The RCMP is addressing all of its priorities through a vigorous emphasis on intelligence, investigations, enforcement, protection and prevention, and education.

The RCMP understands that modern law enforcement means working smarter. It means being flexible enough to respond quickly to changes in the environment. It also means being informed by accurate, actionable intelligence drawn from a broad range of reliable sources.

Equally important, activities must be integrated with the effects of other law enforcement organizations, both at home and abroad, and must rely on the same knowledge of modern technology used by organized crime and international terrorism groups.

Let me highlight a few examples of the way these principles are being put into practice here in Canada and overseas. One that comes quickly to mind is the way the RCMP fights organized crime in our country. In order to determine priorities, develop strategy and allocate resources where they will have the greatest impact, the RCMP works with other members of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada to gather intelligence on known criminal groups and networks of people trafficking in child pornography or fraudulent schemes.

One of the force's most effective tools is an organized crime threat measurement technique called Sleipnir, which allows the RCMP to actively identify its highest priorities in the fight against organized crime by comparing and ranking criminal groups based on the level of threat they represent to Canadian society.

The recently announced child exploitation tracking system, CETS, is also an example of modern police work as well as the power of partnerships. Through the RCMP's national child exploitation coordination centre, police forces across Canada are partnering with Microsoft to develop and implement a cutting edge software system that combats cyberspace child pornography. CETS will lead to more arrests for this heinous crime and assist in identifying and rescuing the victims of child pornography.

The RCMP is also working as well to ensure that Canada is not used by international terrorists as a safe haven or a staging area for threats against other countries. Members of the force participate in integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, along with their colleagues from federal departments and provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies to collect, share and analyze information about potential threats to national security.

In addition to INSETs, the RCMP has implemented several programs related to cross-border security, including the integrated border enforcement teams called IBETs, the airport coastal watch program, and the marine security and ports initiative.

The IBET mandate is to “enhance border security and security at the shared Canada/U.S. border by identifying, investigating, and interdicting persons and organizations that pose a threat to national security or are engaged in other organized criminal activity”.

Following the signing of the Manley-Ridge 30-point smart border action plan in December 2001, the RCMP received funding of $25 million per year for five years to expand the IBET concept. Members will be pleased to note that the cross-border crime forum will use the IBET concept as a best practice and a model for strong Canada-United States relations.

The force has earned a well deserved international reputation as a leading edge police organization, in large part because of its ability to continually adapt to meet the changing needs of our times. While we can still find officers on horseback, we are much more likely to find RCMP employees keeping the peace in Haiti and Côte d'Ivoire, involved in strategic planning meetings with international counterparts, hunched over a computer combating cybercrime, or gathering intelligence on criminal and terrorist activity.

The RCMP is considered a model of modern police enforcement, respected for its strategic use of resources and the latest technology as well as for its emphasis on cooperative approaches to fighting organized crime and international terrorism.

The secretary general of Interpol, Ronald Noble, on a recent visit to Canada, complimented the Canadian model when he said “whatever you call the highest category of support and participation we have, Canada is in that category”. Mr. Noble, who is an American, also countered the misperception that Canada is a superhighway for terrorists when he said “they got it right that Canada is super, but not a highway”.

We can no longer combat domestic crime and hope it stops at our borders. We have to recognize that crime in all its forms is often nurtured in conditions of poverty and social distress, whether on Canadian or foreign ground, and in the end knows no borders. That is why we need to foster partnerships with all prospective partners, whether their resources are great or small.

Through its international policing services strategy, the RCMP helps other countries avoid crisis and maintain stability through peace building and peacekeeping. It helps coordinate the program that selects peacekeepers from the policing community on behalf of the Government of Canada. It also trains foreign police forces to use the very techniques of modern law enforcement that work so well here at home.

Generations of Canadians have valued the courage and commitment shown by members of the RCMP as they have strived to keep our homes and communities safe and our country secure for the past 130 years. We can all be extremely proud that this longstanding tradition of excellence can still be counted on today.

I am sure all members of the House join me in commending the RCMP's exemplary use of modern policing to make our ever-evolving world a safer one to live in, whether as Canadians or as citizens of other nations. Without the RCMP's efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a far more dangerous place.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, the hon. member opposite indicated that his constituents feel less safe because of the reorganization of the RCMP offices. The RCMP have never been first responders. Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the Sûreté du Québec does not do its job.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada-U.S. relations are vital not simply to trade but also if we are to work together on safeguarding North America. Communities along the border depend significantly on the success of our efforts.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We have invested significantly in security initiatives here at home, but how are we working with the United States to preserve our cooperation and ensure its understanding of our partnership?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. For many in the House, including me, the decision we must make on this legislation is one of the most difficult that we have been called upon to make as members of Parliament, namely, to support or oppose same sex marriage.

As we are all aware, on December 9, 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in our country, while making an appropriate qualification that religious groups or clergy are not obliged to perform same sex unions against their beliefs, a very key exception.

The court's advice will assist parliamentarians in their deliberations; however, most important, it does not undermine the democratic role of Parliament. Parliamentarians in the House of Commons will make the final decision on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples. Whether one is for or against same sex marriage, the decision will be made in a democratic way through full and transparent public deliberations followed by a free vote.

Over the past decade there have been several federal legislative changes to ensure legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. These were emotionally charged debates as well. I supported every one of those initiatives and voted in favour of the legislation which enacted them.

In 1996 Bill C-41 amended Criminal Code sentencing provisions, setting out an aggravating sentencing factor for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on listed personal characteristics, including sexual orientation. That is section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Parliament also enacted the act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which added “sexual orientation” to the CHRA's prohibited grounds of discrimination.

In 1999 Parliament adopted the first federal legislation to provide explicitly for same sex benefits. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act replaced opposite sex surviving spouse entitlement to benefits with gender neutral survivor entitlement in the major public service pension statutes. A survivor is one who establishes that he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor for at least a year preceding the latter's death.

In 2000 the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act was adopted. It amended 68 federal statutes to effect their equal application to unmarried heterosexual and same sex couples. The legislation adds the gender neutral designations “common law partner” and/or “survivor” to those statutes and restricts the term “spouse” to married couples. It is interesting to note however that the government added an interpretive amendment stating:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

In 2002 immigration and refugee protection regulations under the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act authorized family class sponsorship for same sex couples under two new eligible gender neutral categories: a common law partner of a sponsor must fulfill a cohabitation requirement, while a sponsor's conjugal partner need not. In each case, the couple's conjugal relationship must be of at least one year's duration.

Since 1993 the government and I as a member in the House have taken very seriously the responsibility of protecting the rights of all our residents.

Canadians will not tolerate harassment of homosexuals or discrimination against same sex couples. At the same time many Canadians have difficulty, in good conscience, of accepting same sex marriage. Some have suggested the sanctioning of same sex civil unions, registered domestic partnerships or life partnerships which are equivalent to common law unions between heterosexual couples. I agree with this approach. Critics feel it falls short of true equity. By working with the provinces I do not believe it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate equality issues around same sex partners.

The common law definition of marriage was until recently undisputed as the union of two persons of the opposite sex, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Indeed this very House considered and supported a motion on June 8, 1999 which stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

That motion passed 216 to 55. I supported it then and I support that position today.

Indeed, over the years our courts have supported this position, as was confirmed when former Supreme Court Justice LaForest speaking for the majority in the Egan case stated:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realties that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

It is interesting to note that this pronouncement of the Supreme Court was made in 1991, 10 years after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some of us have advocated a compromise position that would draw together those on the one side who assert that any restriction on same sex marriage is discriminatory and a violation of human rights with those on the other side who assert that any recognition of homosexual relationships is intolerable. I firmly believe that most Canadians are most comfortable with a middle position recognizing the traditional and distinct definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while recognizing that same sex couples should be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but that it should not be called marriage.

Opponents to this compromise position claim that anything less than full equality would continue a systemic discrimination of the homosexual community. I recall very clearly receiving this admonition from one of my constituents in the Township of Wainfleet. The thought of such an unintended consequence lingers in my mind and contributes to the difficulty of my decision.

I also recall a presentation on same sex marriages to the justice committee in rural New Brunswick when a United Church minister made an effective intervention in support of gay marriage with his desire to some day perform a marriage for his gay son and his partner. This presentation was in stark contrast to many other interventions from religious groups and made it abundantly clear that even the religious community is divided on this issue.

Most members in the House have received literally thousands of interventions on this issue, including conversations, telephone calls, e-mails and letters. I have been approached by constituents in coffee shops and churches, in the street and in stadiums, at community dinners and in restaurants. Many people who would ordinarily not come forward in these public areas have not hesitated to give me their views.

A tabulation of the positions of my constituents in Welland riding who have contacted me on this issue oppose this legislation as proposed on a 10:1 ratio. When asked their opinion on the middle ground, most would agree with it.

The stark reality of the same sex marriage debate is that today seven provinces and one territory have recognized the lawful union of two people of the same sex. It is already the law of those jurisdictions. For all intents and purposes the definition of marriage has been changed. This legislation will give it national application.

The real debate now must centre on whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause. My position is yes.

The courts see the issue as a rights issue, a charter issue, that it is the right of gay persons to be married. I see it as a social policy issue. My opposition centres around one word, marriage, when applied to gay unions.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the many constituents who have contacted me on both sides of this issue. They have contributed to the consideration and debate. Some do not appreciate the position I have taken but we have agreed to differ with mutual respect. That is the Canadian way.

However, if this legislation is to pass, there must be a healing period for Canadians to adjust to a new reality of civil marriage. The government's legislation affirms the charter guarantee of religious freedom, that religious officials are free to perform or not to perform marriage ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith. The response to the reference by the Supreme Court of Canada has made it patently clear that section 2(a) of the charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

As a consequence and in the words of the Prime Minister, “no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple, in no religious house will those who disagree with same sex unions be compelled to perform them”.

I have heard people express concerns that religious freedoms may be eroded even with assurances to the contrary. However, I want to point out that religious protections already in some cases take priority over other charter rights. the Catholic Church continues to refuse the ordination of women in a post-charter world. Many churches already refuse to marry people, particularly those who are divorced. I have yet to hear of any charter challenges on any of the foregoing. The assurances of religious views by the Supreme Court are very sound.

Many Canadians are struggling with this complex and difficult issue as I did. We are talking about changing one of the central and longstanding institutions of society. It is something that will bring out strong feelings on all sides. Notwithstanding, Canadians are tolerant and will respect a balanced and reasoned debate and further, when the decision is finally made will respect that decision. I appreciate the points of those who do not agree with me and hope that they can respect mine.

[The Environment, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the recent federal budget announced an additional $300 million for the green municipal funds of which I understand half will be targeted to the cleanup of brownfields.

The cleanup of these lands can restore otherwise sterile property for new industrial, commercial or retail development providing jobs and generating realty tax revenues. There is also the potential for residential or recreational uses. All the forgoing help to reduce urban sprawl. The benefits are positive. The difficulty is that such rehabilitation is very expensive.

I hope that some of the many Niagara brownfields, particularly along the Welland Canal in Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne, will benefit from this new funding. In particular, a former industrial site in Welland is a prime area for development, as well as surplus St. Lawrence Seaway lands in Port Colborne that are currently the subject of phase III and IV environmental assessments.

I look forward to hearing more details about these funds and how the communities in my Welland riding can apply. I extend our appreciation to the Ministers of Finance and the Environment for their vision and for providing funding for these initiatives.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been very disappointed if the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook did not rise to ask some questions, because most of my speech was directed to the positive benefits for the constituents in our area, the Niagara region.

On the issue of additional funding for our Niagara Regional Police Service, certainly I have been working with the regional chair and our new chief, the former deputy chief, on this issue. They have prepared a business plan for us. I have submitted it to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I was pleased to see this initiative in the budget . It is certainly an area that I will continue to lobby on and advocate for.

Unfortunately I do not control the purse strings, but let me tell the member that the door is there and we are going to walk through it . I think there will be additional funding because it is certainly warranted. They have made a good case. They are the first people on the ground. They are our first responders. I think they deserve to be fully compensated for the services they perform for national security. Again, very few regions are faced with this, so the taxpayers of the Niagara region should not be burdened with that.

On the second point, the excise tax on wine, I was very pleased to see the excise tax on jewellery being phased out. This is certainly an area we have also advocated on, as well as advocating for tax credits for adoption expenses. In the area of excise tax for wines, we are at a competitive disadvantage in the Niagara region with our Canadian wines. I feel that it is on the radar screen for the finance committee and the finance department. They are aware of it.

I did not see it in this budget. I had hoped that I would. I am very confident that we will see it in future budgets. It is certainly something that is needed to make our wine industry more competitive with our global counterparts. The member and I will both push that initiative forward for the benefit of our respective constituents.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the seniors issue is one that is of real concern to me and to the constituents of my region. In fact last week the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers was in my riding. We had a round table with seniors. They were very pleased with the increase in the GIS. As my friend has outlined, it is over a two year period.

A budget has to have a balance. We would love to increase this perhaps even further. We certainly will advocate that but we have to balance it with spending in the military. We have to balance it with our green funding. Certainly we have made a good first step. We have increased the amount of exemption below which people will not be taxed from $8,000 up to $10,000. This also will help many of our low income seniors.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the recent federal budget. I will be sharing my time with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

The Government of Canada has presented an ambitious agenda and a clear commitment to Canadians in maintaining sound financial management, securing our social foundations, achieving a productive and growing economy and meeting our global responsibilities. It is the eighth consecutive balanced budget and is the best fiscal record since Confederation and the best fiscal performance in the G-7. It is common sense, it is balanced and it is sustainable. Promises made during the last federal election are promises kept in this budget.

Rather than speak to the general benefits of individual and corporate tax relief, health care funding, international relief and so on, I would like to talk about the initiatives that are of particular interest to Niagara residents and my constituents in Welland riding.

First and foremost, I welcome the news on border security. Since signing the Canada-U.S. smart border declaration in December 2001, Canada has made considerable progress on improving border security. However, for border regions such as Niagara, this comes with a significant cost to the local law enforcement agencies which, by virtue of strengthened requirements, respond to many calls related to national security.

There is no doubt that the Niagara region's unique situation of bordering the United States on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the Niagara River, not to mention the seven international bridges, four vehicular and three train, result in numerous functions that are national security related, ones which most other municipalities are not faced with. In addition, there is the Welland Canal, which is strategic to inland marine transportation, and a very significant hydro generation plant in Niagara Falls. Not only does the Niagara Regional Police not receive additional funds to cope with these pressures, but the federal RCMP presence has continued to decrease in the region.

Expenses related to national security are ones that should not be borne by the taxpayers of the Niagara region alone, but rather by the taxpayers of our country. It is most unfair to my constituents in the riding of Welland and those who live in the Niagara Peninsula.

The government has committed very significant resources to the security of the country following September 11 and is to be commended for this. Unfortunately, much of this funding did not find its way to our first responders on the ground. That is why I am pleased to see that budget 2005 provides an additional $433 million over five years to strengthen the federal government's capacity to deliver secure and efficient border services.

A portion of these new resources will help increase the number of officers at key border crossings and airports across Canada, including in Ontario. This will help our border services officers at the Niagara Falls and Fort Erie crossings. Most definitely I will continue to press the point that national security services performed by local policing authorities should be adequately and fully compensated.

A related issue to border security is that of marine security. As I mentioned, the Niagara region borders two Great Lakes, one international river and the Welland Canal. Due to cutbacks to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police presence in the peninsula, there is little national police presence on the Great Lakes and the Niagara River. The Niagara Regional Police has limited capabilities and resources to undertake marine patrols. However, it must be done. The approximate annual cost to the Niagara Peninsula taxpayer is $77,000 and that figure excludes the cost of boats and fuel.

Building on past investments and the national security policy, budget 2005 provides an additional $222 million over five years to further enhance the security of Canada's marine transportation system. Funding initiatives include new patrol vessels for the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway, additional inspections, and the creation of emergency response teams. This is a first step in the right direction.

Due to its proximity to the American border, the Niagara Peninsula land border crossings have the highest number of land border refugee claims. Therefore, immigration and settlement issues are very important. Budget 2005 provides an increase of $298 million over five years for settlement and integration programs for newcomers to Canada. Ontario will receive approximately 60% of this funding.

I want to remind the federal government of its responsibility to cover its fair share of not only future costs but for other recent costs. I refer to the influx of refugee claimants between December 14, 2004 and January 16, 2005 arriving at the Buffalo-Fort Erie crossing in anticipation of the implementation of the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States. The final total cost for Niagara taxpayers is in the area of $240,000, almost a quarter of a million dollars. It is my position that the Niagara taxpayers should not have to bear the financial costs associated with this influx and that the costs should be borne by the provincial and federal governments.

It was the implementation of a federal policy that caused this crisis. The region did an excellent job in providing food and shelter over the holiday season. Its first priority was the safety and security of all claimants and immigrants.

I have asked the Government of Canada to review the costs and suggest that its officials meet with regional officials and perhaps their counterparts from the provincial government as soon as possible. The residents of Niagara should not bear these costs. We need to find a way to compensate the region for these extraordinary expenses. It is most inequitable that the taxpayers of Niagara alone fund a situation of national responsibility caused by a national policy.

The budget initiatives for settlement and integration provide a window of opportunity, a door that I will lead the government through.

I am pleased also to note the $75 million investment over five years under the health care agreement to accelerate the integration of health care professionals educated abroad. This will assist with physician and nurse shortages in Niagara. At the last count Niagara had over 50 foreign trained doctors who are either unemployed as health care professionals or underemployed. For a region that desperately needs more physicians and nurses, I am hopeful that this investment will help our concerns. We can ill afford to waste such vast, wonderful human resource assets.

The 2005 budget announced that FedNor will have an additional $14.2 million over five years for the Ontario Community Futures Development Corporations. This funding directly assists the South Niagara Community Futures Development Corporation in Port Colborne, Venture Niagara in Welland, and Grand Erie Business Centre in Cayuga which also serves west Lincoln. The Niagara region and its citizens have been well served by the community futures program and will continue to be.

I understand that some of this money will help to enhance services in official language minority communities. In Niagara, both Port Colborne and Welland have significant francophone populations. As their services seem to be under attack recently, I welcome the news that the federal government continues to uphold minority language rights.

A quarter of Canadians rely on the wealth of nature provided by the Great Lakes ecosystem. The government will expand its ongoing efforts to improve the environmental health of the Great Lakes basin. Budget 2005 provides a further $40 million over the next five years to bring forward the next phase of the Great Lakes action plan.

Building on achievements made since 1989, this initiative will continue the environmental restoration of key aquatic areas of concern identified under the Great Lakes water quality agreement between Canada and the United States, thereby restoring the ecological and economic development potential of these areas. I anticipate that the Niagara region will benefit from this program, not to mention the new funding for invasive species.

Invasive alien species are plants or animals, such as the Asian longhorn beetle, the sea lamprey and the gypsy moth, which are introduced by human action outside their natural habitats causing harm to our local ecosystems. Alien species cause billions of dollars in damage to the economy, for example, through their impact on fish stocks, agricultural yields and forestry inputs. It is more effective and less costly to prevent the entry of invasive alien species than to address their impacts once they are established in Canada.

To promote effective management of the issue, budget 2005 will provide $85 million over five years for an invasive alien species strategy that will focus on enhanced preventive measures. The strategy will be carried out in partnership with the provinces and territories. Strategic investments will be made to increase inspections at our borders, enhance supporting scientific activities, strengthen national surveillance efforts and raise awareness about harmful practices. Addressing the threat of invasive alien species will also support other environmental initiatives, such as Canada's ongoing efforts to protect species at risk and to improve the ecological health of our national parks.

New funding for the invasive alien species strategy includes an incremental $2 million per year over the next five years for the sea lamprey control program, which is jointly administered by Canada and the United States to control the presence of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. This funding will enable Canada to increase its annual contribution to the program to improve its delivery and thus ensure better protection of our Great Lakes. This is terrific news for our commercial fishers and anglers alike.

The green municipal funds, which make investments in innovative green municipal projects, will also be enhanced by $300 million. Half of this amount will be targeted to the cleanup of brownfields.

The cleanup of these lands can restore otherwise sterile property for new industrial, commercial or retail development which provides jobs and generates realty tax revenues. There is also the potential for residential or recreational uses. All the foregoing help to reduce urban sprawl. The benefits are positive. The difficulty is that such rehabilitation is very expensive.

The federal government led by example to clear up federally owned property by committing $3.5 billion to brownfield redevelopment on federal lands in the 2004 budget. The 2005 budget goes even further. It is my hope that some of the many Niagara brownfields particularly along the Welland Canal in Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne will benefit. I recently met with representatives of Welland on a former industrial site which would be a prime area for development, perhaps a seniors residence assisted by our housing policies. In Port Colborne environmental assessments have been concluded and are being peer reviewed at this time. The next stage must be action on the ground.

Budget 2005 provides $200 million over five years and a total of $920 million over 15 years to expand the wind power production incentive, which will create enough energy to power one million Canadian homes with zero emissions. There have been inquiries into wind power in the Niagara area, in particular the Wainfleet area. This program may provide the incentive to move forward on an environmentally friendly development using the natural asset of the lake winds.

This is an excellent budget. It includes measures such as tax reductions for low and middle income Canadians, investments in child care and increases in military spending. It continues the government's excellent fiscal record of achievement.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The bill would have significant consequences not just for Citizenship and Immigration Canada but for many other departments as well. It is important for all of us to look very closely at its provisions and carefully weigh its potential impact before we move forward.

The notion of allowing someone to enter our country as a visitor on the strength of a bond or guarantee, of course, has been around in one form or another for many years. The subject is not new.

Bill C-283 would add a new wrinkle to this debate however by purporting to implement safeguards against potential abuse through provisions that restrict access to the refugee determination system for this class of visitor. As well, those who visit Canada under the terms of this bill would not be allowed to make an application to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds should their circumstances change.

Canada is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees as well as the UN convention on torture. These conventions commit us to not return individuals to a country where they could face torture or have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Bill C-283 could therefore lead to violations of our international commitments and our humanitarian duty to help those in need of Canada's protection. Moreover, by requiring claimants to leave Canada regardless of whether or not the refugee claim has been heard, Bill C-283 on its face would seem to violate section 7 of the charter, which guarantees to everyone on Canadian soil the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The bill before us is not supportable on these grounds alone; however, there are many more reasons why I cannot support this flawed legislation.

The bill would essentially allow any Canadian or permanent resident over the age of 18 to apply to sponsor a foreign national as a visitor to Canada by posting a bond or guarantee. It applies to cases where an application for a temporary resident visa has failed within the previous year and the sponsor has not posted a bond for a foreign national who subsequently failed to comply with the conditions of his or her visa within the previous five years. The amount of each bond is to be determined in accordance with section 45 of the current regulations.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges noted in the last debate that the bill's provisions are restricted to close family members. I suggest that on closer examination she will find that this is indeed not the case. The bill has no such limit. It applies to all Canadian and permanent residents over the age of 18 regardless of whether there is any connection to the sponsor or not.

It could apply, for example, to an adult surfing the net who sponsors a minor he or she meets online. It could also apply to people smugglers willing to spend the small amount of money required to pursue their illegal activities. The door is wide open.

The government has explored ways of allowing people to sponsor visitors through the use of bonds in the past and has rejected that idea for many of the same reasons that Bill C-283 is not supportable.

Bill C-283 would place an unsustainable administrative burden on an already heavily strained system and would likely produce few benefits. Visa officers are unlikely to be swayed in cases where they have already decided the application for a visitor's visa should be rejected.

Under the terms in Bill C-283, an officer would need time to confirm the identity and status of the sponsor in Canada after an initial application has been rejected. He or she would then need to determine the financial resources of a sponsor in Canada. This could involve credit checks, a review of assets and income, tax returns and many other documents. There would also have to be a review to ensure financial sources are not linked to organized crime.

A second application for a visa would then need to be filed and processed. Even with a bond, there is no guarantee the application would be accepted. Such a system is therefore not only cumbersome and slow, it also has the potential to exacerbate the levels of frustration many of our constituents might be feeling today. It would do little to these cases or even guarantee a satisfactory outcome for the applicant.

I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta during the previous debates on the bill. I was particularly interested in his comparisons with Australia and his comments regarding Canada's high commission in New Delhi.

I fully understand the frustration he might have felt in talking to failed applicants outside the high commission. But the hon. member will also know that many applications for a visitor's visa are approved without an interview. Only those with tenuous applications are asked to appear at the high commission. I therefore find his unofficial survey rather inaccurate.

His comparisons to Australia are similarly so, since he takes no account of the social, cultural, and even geographic differences between our countries. Nor does he take into account the fact that Australia has no charter of rights and freedoms. Perhaps a more realistic comparison is within our own country and our own past experiences with bonds.

This is most troubling for me and my constituents as my colleague opposite has just referenced. Members will recall the 1999 four boatloads of illegal migrants who arrived on British Columbia's coast from the Chinese province of Fujan. Most of the migrants from the first boat were released after guarantors posted bonds to ensure they would report for the hearing process. All subsequently fled and forfeited their bonds. Investigators suspect that most made their way to the U.S. with the help of human smugglers. I therefore think it is safe to say that bonds are not an effective deterrent to flight in today's world of human smuggling and highly organized crime syndicates.

For all these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-283 or any other such deeply flawed system that would expose the government to an unsupportable strain on existing resources involving our international commitments as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.