John Maloney

[Senior Citizens, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers.

Two weeks ago I stood in the House to draw attention to the financial realities of life for Canada's low income senior citizens. Could the minister of state tell us what in yesterday's budget addresses my concerns and those of my Welland riding constituents?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the all-party steel caucus, I would like to communicate our position that private member's Bill C-223 merits further study at committee stage.

Many past and present employees of the steel industry are being seriously affected by the shake-up that is occurring in this sector. As a result, provisions in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are being implemented and these employees and pensioners find themselves at a disadvantage to other creditors after years of hard toil and loyal service, and at a time in their lives when it is most difficult to start over.

This issue is not unique to either the steel industry or even to Canada. It is a growing serious concern for men and women across the country. The steel caucus is unanimous that a serious study of the provisions of Bill C-223 as they relate to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is required.

Our position has been communicated to the Minister of Industry and a copy has been sent to all members of the House of Commons. Let us have a full review of this issue. Our employees and pensioners deserve nothing less.

[Seniors, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, many senior citizens are finding it financially difficult to support themselves on low fixed incomes as their day to day living expenses increase far in excess of their incomes. In too many cases indexation of the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement has not kept step with increases in the cost of modest rental accommodations, utilities and food. An evening meal of tea and toast is just not acceptable for our seniors.

Canadian society takes great pride in our values of justice, equality and compassion, yet too many senior members of our community who have contributed to building this great country worry and suffer in silence at a stage in their lives when they are most vulnerable and physically incapable of improving their lot.

A strong commitment here in the House of Commons along with a commitment at the provincial level is essential in guaranteeing that seniors who face financial difficulties with fixed incomes will have greater ease in their retirement without severe financial worries.

I call on the government to take immediate steps to address this shameful situation.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, February 7th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Welland.

Mr. Speaker, I made the motion for leave to introduce this private member's bill that would change the name of my electoral district from Welland to Niagara South--Centre.

The name “Welland” is a little bit misleading because the city of Welland is but one of four regional municipalities plus part of a fifth. I believe it is inequitable that the name of a riding reflects only one community, not to mention that it is confusing for constituents who do not live in the city of Welland.

I submit the name “Niagara South--Centre” is a good compromise and, at the same time, does not infringe on any current provincial riding names in the area.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise to speak to Bill C-285. I would agree that the member opposite who sponsored the bill, his heart is in the right place, but it is time he also put his head where his heart is.

I am quite frankly surprised that the Conservative Party is so strongly in favour of the bill. This is a party that is opposed to grants because they are bad. It is opposed to subsidies because they are bad too. It is opposed to any government intervention because that is awful. However, this has curb appeal. It is glitzy. It appeals to the heartstrings and frankly that is so superficial. We should look a little deeper into this legislation.

I would like to provide some input regarding the bill which, if enacted, would give athletes and exemption of up to $8,000 of the income they receive from non-profit organizations operating exclusively for the purpose of promoting amateur athletes. We have heard about youth, but as I look in the bill, I see nothing about youth. It is athletics and amateur athletics of any age. It could be an octogenarian and also qualify for this. Let us look at it in all honesty.

As my colleagues opposite have already made the case for not supporting the bill, I will speak to a few issues which I believe merit further attention.

First, they suggest that the bill would support our amateur athletes by exempting up to $8,000 of their income received from non-profit organizations from tax. That is leaving more money in their pockets. Let me note that our tax system already provides a basic personal tax credit of approximately $8,000 to all taxpayers. Therefore, the extent that an athlete has revenue of less than $8,000, he or she will pay no tax.

Take the example perhaps of a junior hockey team as has been referenced opposite. A living allowance of $4,000 given to a player would not be taxable because it would be below the basic personal threshold of $8,000. In this regard the bill is unnecessary because the tax system already provides a mechanism to ensure that a basic amount of income is not taxable. However, the effect of the bill is to provide an exemption to Canadians who, in addition to earning another source of income, also receive income from a non-profit organization. If that is true, let me submit that it would run counter to basic tax policy to enact the bill.

On what basis can we justify exempting $16,000 of an athlete's income from tax when other low income taxpayers receive only an $8,000 basic personal exemption? As is shown from this example, the bill does not stand the test of scrutiny.

Second, it is my understanding that the bill is intended to aid amateur athletes who are struggling financially by exempting part of their income from tax. The manner in which the bill is drafted leaves me to wonder who it is really supposed to help as there are no limits as to who can take advantage of this exemption. In other words, and it was alluded to earlier, the exemption would apply to an athlete whether he or she earns $10,000 or $100,000 of income. It goes without saying that to allow the exemption to apply to someone earning $100,000 would be just totally unjustifiable.

Has the member costed out what the financial impact would be on government revenues and where the additional revenue would come from to pay for our health care expenditures, our child care expenditures, perhaps our seniors' pensions and our military? Frankly, it would be difficult to speculate because there are so many Canadians participating in so many types of sporting activities. We all wish to encourage sporting activities, but this initiative I submit is not well thought out.

Lastly, I agree with my colleague when he mentioned that providing a tax exemption is not the best way to support amateur sports in Canada. The practice of a sport is primarily an individual and perhaps a family decision. To the extent that the government should involve itself, it should not be through the tax system.

In short, the bill fails as a good alternative for supporting struggling amateur athletes and amateur sports in general.

That is dealing with the bill as it reads, but let me speak just on the general principle.

The Minister of Finance will not be supporting this private member's bill that introduces tax measures outside the budget process. Tax decisions should be made in the budget not as one-off initiatives, as in this case, pre-empting consideration of all priorities outlined in the Speech from the Throne. This is a fundamental principle from which we should not waver.

The current minority situation raises significant concerns with regard to private members' tax measures and their pressures on the fiscal framework. At present, there are currently 13 private members' tax measures before the House which total a very conservative estimate of $2.5 billion per year worth of tax reductions. That is a lot of money.

If we take $2.5 billion out of our general revenues, where will we make up the deficit to pay for much needed programs such as our health care, our pensions, our seniors pensions, child care, the military, all these items which members opposite think are so important, and they certainly are.

The majority of these initiatives are well-intentioned targeted tax reductions, such as making the cost of tools for employment tax deductible, creating a deduction for volunteer emergency service, creating a deduction for adoption expenses, which I would personally support. We also have the current one, better tax treatment for our athletes in amateur sport. Again, we all agree with that principle, but not to do it through the tax system.

Which of these does not have merit in some aspect? Which one would we pick in priority if that were possible? These private members' bills, while in some instances have merit on their own, present a very serious challenge because of their cumulative impact, $2.5 billion. Where does one draw the line? I respectfully suggest the line must be drawn on Bill C-285. As we have heard, the bill has serious flaws as drafted.

For all the foregoing reasons, the bill should not receive the support of the House. I encourage all members of the House to get over the emotional aspects of the bill. Let common sense and reason prevail. That is a comment we have often heard from members opposite. We were elected to do that. Vote no to Bill C-285. It is common sense.

[Welland Canal, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to recognize that November 30, 2004 marks the 175th anniversary of the Welland Canal, a world renowned waterway that runs through my riding. In Canada's earliest years, water transport of goods was essential in opening Canada's trade routes to the world. The Welland Canal was one of these routes from the heartland of the Great Lakes to foreign ports in far off lands.

The canal, originally built in 1829 to bypass Niagara Falls, has been refined to become a Canadian engineering feat, linking Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The canal today is 43 kilometres long and contains eight locks that lift or lower ships a total of 325 feet across the Niagara Escarpment. Since the canal's opening, it has witnessed over 100,000 ship transits and movement of billions of tonnes of cargo. It is an integral part of the St. Lawrence Seaway's network of waterways, which coincidentally celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. The Welland Canal has helped shape the geographic, cultural, and economic landscape of Niagara while bringing much growth in commerce for Canada.

I would like to congratulate all those connected with the Welland Canal, including all those who contributed to its construction and operation, and shipping companies and the crews of all the ships who transit this waterway in an environmentally friendly way.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Parliament is holding an emergency debate tonight on the issue of the Ukraine election. I am participating in tonight's debate because all Canadians, especially my constituents in the riding of Welland, are concerned about the international ramifications of these events.

Let us not forget that Canada was the first country to acknowledge Ukraine's independence in 1991. These last few days the events which have taken place see Ukraine slipping back into a realm of dictatorship. We must stand by Ukraine once again.

With so much at stake, it is inexcusable that these elections were marred by massive irregularities and fraud. Credible reports have indicated that situations like the following took place in lead up to and during both rounds of the election.

For example, post-secondary students were offered a range of bribes to vote for the prime minister, including higher grades, money and two month's free rent. Students were threatened with expulsion for supporting the opposing candidates. At one polling station at a technical college, all 1,894 votes were for the incumbent prime minister. Not surprising.

Another situation of ballot box manipulation where 10% of the ballots were disqualified. They then disqualified the entire ballot box. Acid was dropped into ballot boxes. Members may not believe this but invisible ink was known to be used in some polling stations to mark ballots.

Some voters in the eastern Ukraine, the stronghold of the incumbent prime minister, voted in the morning at their local polling station and then were bused to Kiev and other locations to vote again, sometimes more than once, using absentee ballots.

One region is reported to have recorded a voter turnout of over 99%, 19% higher than the national average and well beyond the normal deviation from the mean. It is alleged that at the time balloting closed the recorded turnout was only 74.3%, meaning that 843,000 voters were added after balloting ended.

International observers and opposition scrutineers were denied access to polling stations. Some Canadian observers were followed and threatened. Others were detained and their passports seized. Such intimidation is unacceptable.

Militia members were posted in polling stations, contrary to the elections act, some standing by the ballot box to observe the name on the ballot as it was cast unfolded into the box.

Our colleague, the Liberal member for Etobicoke Centre, addressed an estimated crowd of more than 100,000 people in Kiev's Independence Square. It is his view, as a Canadian MP, that Viktor Yushchenko should be accepted as the people's president.

The runoff election was worse than the first round elections, which were widely criticized for falling below international standards. These are not technical discrepancies. These are gross violations of the democratic process. This is wholesale fraud, a coup d'état by a failing and falling regime.

Popular protests against the stolen election have sprung up across Ukraine as people take to the streets to demand that their votes be fairly counted. We all hold our breath in fear of harm to these peaceful protesters that might spark a violent response throughout the country. Ukraine is on the brink of a civil crisis with foreboding and possibly bloody consequences.

Considering these allegations of serious and significant electoral fraud from international and Canadian election observers, the Government of Canada cannot accept the announced election results by the central election commission reflect the true democratic will of the Ukrainian people.

Today in question period, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that Canada rejects the announced final results. The Government of Canada calls for a full, open and transparent review of the election process. Canada will have no choice but to examine its relations with the Ukraine if the authorities fail to provide election results that reflect the democratic will of the people of that country.

The western community has been unanimous in its condemnation of the results. The White House has urged Ukrainian authorities not to certify results until investigations of organized fraud are resolved. The United States did not accept the election results as legitimate and called for immediate action. The European Union and individual member states have also issued statements similar to our countrys.

Not surprisingly, Russia has adopted an opposite attitude. President Putin has congratulated Yanukovich on the results. Is this the first step to a new U.S.S.R.? My response is simple: Yanukovich, no. Democracy, yes.

We are monitoring developments to determine whether Ukraine addresses the concerns of international observers and ensures that the election outcome reflects the democratic will of the Ukrainian people. This is also a lesson for Canada. We must consider the importance of continuing to foster democratic practices in Ukraine. Canada has been strongly committed to the development of democracy in this country, in particular through CIDA. Since 1991 we have provided over $235 million in assistance to Ukraine. The current election provides evidence that the civic society is indeed getting stronger in that country. Assistance and guidance through CIDA must continue, indeed must increase.

Canada must not lose sight of the fact that the people of Ukraine are the greatest victims of this tragedy. We must affirm our solidarity with them. In practical terms, this means that we must remain engaged with our popular democratic elements within the general population to ensure Ukraine does not become isolated within the world.

These are important days ahead and Canada must remain resolute to its commitment to freedom and democracy for the people of Ukraine. We in this Parliament tonight symbolically stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian brothers and sisters in the streets of Ukraine as we speak.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain other acts.

As members of the House know, the legislation is part of the government's wider response to the events of September 11, 2001 and to the threatened environment at large. On that terrible September day, terror became a real and unwelcome addition to our national consciousness. All of us grasped, in a tangible way, what until then had perhaps been only understood in the abstract: that the threat of terrorism does not just exist in far away places in some far off land, but indeed is on our very doorstep. When in subsequent days Canada was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a potential target, all Canadians knew that we had to confront terror in its most fundamental and ferocious form, that we had to face the realities of a new time.

Following September 11, the Government of Canada took stock and took action. Important new security measures were introduced, including beefing up security at our airports, creating the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and developing a comprehensive new approach to our border with the United States.

Then, on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister introduced his new cabinet and with it a new security architecture for Canada. This new structure included the creation of a new position in the Privy Council Office: national security adviser to the Prime Minister. It also included a new committee of cabinet devoted to security, public health and emergencies, which coordinates safety and security efforts across all federal departments.

The new security architecture also included the new Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for customs at the Canada-U.S. border and other points of entry as well as for intelligence sharing between law enforcement partners in both countries. The new Canada Border Services Agency has also become the focal point for smart border initiatives, ensuring a border that is open to trade but closed to terror and crime.

This is so important to all border crossings, especially in my riding in the region of Niagara. Just last month the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met with U.S. secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, to highlight the progress made to date on implementing the Canada-U.S. smart border action plan.

The progress is impressive and extensive. It includes the creation of two new dedicated fast lanes, one each in British Columbia and Windsor; the implementation of the Nexus U.S. air pilot program at Vancouver International Airport using biometric technology; a joint plan to engage interested parties in a discussion on commercial-free screening to enhance traffic flow at Fort Erie-Buffalo Peace Bridge; a commitment by Canada to join with the U.S. in its continued security initiative, including the deployment of Canada Border Service Agency officials to a foreign marine port by April 2005; and the signing of a letter of intent to ensure radio interoperability so that first responders and others can communicate quickly and effectively.

We also announced, on top of these measures, that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would work with the US Department of Homeland Security to decide which actions to take in case of national emergencies, like joint vulnerability assessments, binational intervention plans and protocols, and sharing more information regarding alerts and warnings.

A key part of the smart border action plan is related to ensuring better coordination between our two countries with respect to action on cross-border crime and terrorist activity. To that end, integrated border enforcement teams, or IBETs, have been established.

Recently, at the eighth annual Canada-U.S. Border Crime Forum, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, together with the U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft, announced a number of initiatives aimed at addressing the cross-border drug trade, firearms trafficking and improving intelligence sharing.

Among the announcements made at that time was the co-location of Canadian and American IBET officials in locations in both countries as well as the release of a border drug threat assessment, which analyzes the two-way movement of drugs across the border and identifies the best practices for joint enforcement activities. New measures were announced to halt the trafficking of firearms as well as initiatives which would help the RCMP and the Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace stolen guns and match crime scene bullets to a shared data base.

As part of its overall review of Canada's security requirements, the Government of Canada has also undertaken a comprehensive review of its national security policies. This review was tabled by the Prime Minister on April 27 this year under the title “Securing an Open Society”.

This new national security policy represents a major step forward in strengthening the security environment and identifies three key national security interests that Canada must advance.

First, we must protect Canada and Canadians at home and abroad. This includes safeguarding not only the physical safety of our citizens, but also of the core values Canadians have come to rely on at home and represent to the world.

Second, we must ensure that Canada does not become a base of operations for those who do harm to our allies or ourselves.

Third, it recognizes Canada's responsibility to contribute to international security. At a time when the world is interconnected as never before, we must shoulder our share, including the sending of troops if necessary and the strengthening of international institutions that contribute to global security.

This national security policy is comprehensive in scope, recognizing the changing international landscape and positioning Canada to play a key role in global affairs. This new policy also recognizes that to be successful, it must reflect the diverse perspectives of our diverse population. That is why the government has created a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to engage Canadians in an ongoing discussion of national security issues and how those issues relate to our pluralistic society. The roundtable will provide advice to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice.

It is against the background of all these initiatives, all these efforts to enhance the security of Canadians that the government also announced on December 12 of last year, the creation of a new department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the subject of the legislation before us today. As one of the first announcements of the new government, it sent a clear message that security would be a key priority.

As hon. members have heard, this will be the focal point, the coordinating body for all our efforts to protect Canadians from any and all threats, whether such threats are to their personal or economic well-being or that of their communities. It will bring together in one place and under one minister the full range of tools necessary to provide a coordinated, integrated and effective response to the full gamut of threats from natural disasters to organized crime or acts of terrorism.

As the lynchpin of Canada's new security architecture, it plays a key role coordinating our response, ensuring efficiencies among departments and interoperability across organizations as well as facilitating joint action with other partners, whether provincial, territorial or international.

This is the right legislation, which gives the right response at the right time. It allows us to review Canada's domestic security strategy while reaffirming our determination to stay true to our values.

This legislation also gives the government the tools needed to give Canadians the security they expect.

In the face of adversity, our country has a choice. We can be fearful or we can be prepared. Bill C-6 provides our unambiguous response. We will be prepared. In passing this legislation we declare in no uncertain terms that Canada is united, not simply by danger and hazard, but in purpose and resolve. In defending and protecting ourselves, we reassert the value we attach to our freedoms and our determination to defend those freedoms whenever threatened. That is why I invite all hon. members to support this very important legislation.

[Municipalities, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian municipalities are beginning their budget process for the 2005 fiscal year. The Government of Canada has announced very positive initiatives that will help communities across this country.

My question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. Is the government communicating with municipalities about the impact of federal programs on local government in advance of their budgetary exercise and more important, when will this money flow to them?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, constituents and industries in my riding of Welland in the Niagara region know how critical it is that our border with the U.S. remains open to the efficient flow of goods and commerce. That is why I rise today to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister about today's visit by U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure access across the Canada-U.S. border?