John Maloney

[Agriculture, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to Casco and the Ontario Corn Producers' Association who have recently created a new initiative which enables producers of corn to sell their product online. E-commerce for kernels has arrived. The initiative was launched on their existing website, went live on January 20 this year and has already received tremendous support.

The “Sell Your Corn on the Web” project was designed to increase the volume of corn purchased by Casco directly from Ontario corn producers by using the Internet. It is truly an innovative and modern initiative that promises great success for our corn producers and processors alike.

Casco and the Ontario Corn Producers' Association have been working together to promote growth in agriculture and agri-food and will continue to look for opportunities that will benefit all stakeholders and ultimately our Canadian public.

Casco and the OCPA are to be commended for having taken this important step to secure a role in the promotion of a sustainable and future driven agriculture market. People in our agriculture and agri-food industry continue to use modern technology to their competitive advantage.

[Health Care, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in February of this year Canada's first ministers agreed to a new health plan to improve access to quality care for all Canadians. Canada's health care renewal accord of 2003 is an important step to improving universal health care for all Canadians.

The premier of the province of Ontario recently stated that the $2 billion they expect to get for Ontario's share of the anticipated increase in federal health care dollars will be used primarily to reimburse the province for what it already has spent on health care rather than to provide new services.

My constituents of Erie--Lincoln support the Romanow report and have called on the Governments of Canada and Ontario to ensure accountability in provincial health care spending. They fear Mr. Eves is scheming to use new federal health care funding for his tax cuts and other unrelated expenditures rather than to improve the medicare system.

I urge the Government of Canada to ensure that federal dollars given to the provinces for health care spending is used for its intended purposes and nothing less.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's interest in our relationship with the United States. He has had a very active role with the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association and can appreciate the mutual respect that politicians at our level have for each other.

If we were to have placed troops on the Iraqi border with the United States we would be perceived as the same type of aggressor as the United States. We wanted to bring this situation to an end through consensus, through a peaceful means, and not through violent military means. We were unsuccessful and it is very sad that this happened.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my personal opinion that Geneva conventions should be respected at all times.

I can appreciate that there must be an effective response to aggressors, but certainly, there is a humanitarian aspect that we cannot have our troops or allied troops incurring atrocities or subjecting their opponents to atrocities, nor do we accept enforcing that on any other party.

The weapons that the member has suggested, if they are in violation of the Geneva conventions, I strongly feel that those violators should be brought to task. We certainly did that with our own armed forces when there were inappropriate actions far exceeding what was necessary under the circumstances. I can recall some of those events. We acted firmly with our own troops and we expect the international community to do the same with any violators in this conflict or any future conflict.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has gone on at great length on his speculative comments on what could or has happened. That is not correct.

We are an independent country and have an independent foreign policy. We have reflected the opinions and values of Canadians in making this decision. Let us look at the polls. There is no question that we have done the right thing and we will continue to do the right thing. We are a friend of America and we will stand by the Americans. We think their position in this specific action is not the right position.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to follow the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this debate. I wish to thank him for his efforts on behalf of Canadians and the world community in attempting to preserve peace on this globe and avoid hostilities. This has been going on over the last several months leading up to today.

Canada has a long and respected tradition of working for peaceful and lawful resolution of disputes. In the current situation, Canada worked very hard to broker a compromise position through diplomatic channels. We tried to bring the Security Council together. We tried to find a bridge between those who felt Saddam Hussein could be disarmed over a reasonable period and those who demanded an extremely short period and immediate response. Unfortunately, and sadly, we were unsuccessful.

The Prime Minister confirmed earlier this week that, as a result of a lack of consensus among the United Nations Security Council and the lack of a resolution authorizing armed intervention, Canada would not join with the United States on its attack on Iraq. For my part, I accept this position.

First, I believe that Saddam Hussein, while a terrible person, a despot, a tyrant, and a dictator, has been effectively isolated and contained thanks in great part to the sanctions and work already done by the United Nations.

Second, I have a great difficulty with any nation or group of nations launching a military offensive without the support of the global community through the United Nations.

Over the years, the operations of the United Nations have been good for international affairs and the resolution of conflicts from a multilateral perspective. Unilateral unsanctioned actions fly in the face of such success.

I question if this action is even legal under international law when this offence is clearly not the result of a direct attack, the only basis for aggression under international law. It is also a stretch to suggest that the actions are further to the war on terrorism. At best, the link established between Iraq and the September 11, 2001, attacks is weak and speculative. I have deep concerns for the economic and political stability in the entire Middle East region during and after the conflict.

Finally, I am appreciative that this offence may only serve to exacerbate tensions with Arab nations and may even result in an increased risk of terrorism around the globe. We may have an entirely new generation of young Arabs who see the west as an unjustified aggressor. How do we then break the cycle of hatred and misunderstanding without first giving diplomacy and peace a longer period of time to work?

I question if President Bush has some greater knowledge that makes Saddam Hussein a more severe threat than what we observe. Is there a pre-eminent threat that can justify the toll of tremendous civilian and military casualties that will inevitably come?

Our veterans tell us that war is hell. They rarely provide us with the details because of the pain that these memories bring.

I suggest that there are other parts of the world where there is a clear and imminent danger more so than Iraq. Let us think of North Korea, Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, just to name a few. Why Iraq? Why now?

We wonder if this conflict will claim Canadian lives, not only to the limited military personnel in the Middle East, but also the Canadian civilians who may still be in the region for whatever purpose they have chosen to remain. We fear for collateral damage to the Iraqi population and the citizens of Kuwait, Turkey and Israel, to name a few. If attacked, will Israel retaliate with tremendous military force and will this draw in other Arab nations who are currently on the sidelines in yet further retaliation against Israel? Will it be apocalypse now?

I appreciate the argument that we need to stand by our friends, the Americans. But I do not agree that we should do so at any cost. We must feel free to pursue our own policies and our own values. Let us not forget that Canada is a sovereign nation and made an independent decision on behalf of all Canadians.

Canada continues to support the United States in Operation Enduring Freedom, the war on terrorism, and will in fact supply Canadian troops to relieve U.S. forces in Afghanistan later this year. Three Canadian frigates continue to patrol the Persian Gulf and have no plans to abandon these duties. There are also 31 Canadian military personnel in an integrated force already in Kuwait which are not being removed from the area.

These military units are to concentrate on the fight against terrorism, not to participate in the war on Iraq. Canada has also stated that it will assist with humanitarian projects in Iraq after hostilities are concluded, in essence, to help Iraq and its people rebuild. Indeed, I have heard of an estimated immediate cost to the international community for humanitarian basics such as food and shelter may entail up to $124 million.

We in Canada are not isolated by this conflict in far off lands. There are serious domestic implications at home as well. We in the Niagara Peninsula are very sensitive to the friendship between our two countries. Almost everyone can count an American friend, relative or neighbour among their acquaintances. To say that we jeopardize these relationships, when I am not even certain that many of our American friends support their own government's position, is debatable.

We will work through this with the sense of mutual respect that we have for one another. Americans are our friends and allies today, and they will be tomorrow. We fear for the safety and security of their military personnel.

Longer than usual waits at our border for commercial traffic have already started but is not a crisis. Yesterday I spoke with a representative of a horticultural company who was concerned that lengthy delays would adversely affect getting his product to the United States market in a saleable condition. If the problem extends for a long duration, it could be devastating for his business and employees.

Unlike September 11 however, we are prepared for the effects of increased surveillance and inspections on both sides of the border. In fact, we are conducting exit inspections for outbound traffic at our borders as a further measure to assist our American friends with security measures. Our customs and immigration officers have risen to the occasion. There may be some delays but our border will not close. It may not be business quite as usual for a brief period but it will be business. Trade with the United States, which is the lifeblood of our country, will continue.

I am concerned that our fragile airline industry may be dealt a knockout blow as business travellers, tourists and vacationers may understandably cancel flights. An industry which has many participants teetering on the brink of bankruptcy can ill afford interruption of any substantial consequence. We have lived through the impact of this on our airlines and aerospace industry during 9/11. It could be a long road back. As well, rising fuel costs may restrict the use of the family vehicle and normal family activities. The auto industry may also be impacted.

All that being said, Canadians must not withdraw in fear and apprehension, otherwise the terrorists have won. The foregoing domestic concerns are insignificant when compared to the potential loss of life and devastation in Iraq but nevertheless cannot be ignored.

Canada worked diligently at the United Nations to help members reach some kind of compromise. In addition, the Prime Minister went on U.S. national television recently and suggested that the U.S. had effectively already won this war. His thoughts, that are shared by many in the international community, gave the U.S. administration a gracious way to tone down the rhetoric without losing face. I personally think that we should be proud that our role has been true to the Canadian values of consensus building.

There is undoubtedly a gamble involved in this situation and, as with many serious situations that will result in death and casualties, it might only be through the lens of history that we will be able to say whether or not we have chosen the right course. It may take years to really ascertain if there has been a victory in Iraq. However, in my mind, the risk of allowing the United Nations additional time to disarm Saddam Hussein outweighed the risk of killing innocent Iraqi citizens and U.S. military personnel.

A post-war Iraq deserves some sober consideration. Can warring factions within the country be governed in peace and stability when the tyrant is gone? Can a people who have never experienced democracy suddenly make it work? Let us be firm that Iraqis must be governed by Iraqis and Iraqi oil must be for Iraq. How will other oppressive regimes in the region view and treat their new democratic neighbour? Will they consider it a threat to them and their lifestyles as well? Difficult times will still be ahead when hostilities cease.

Peacekeeping operations will lead to long term commitments which are difficult to speculate. Will they be for two, four or maybe six years? I have no doubt however that Canada will be a participant in such deployments.

In discussions and correspondence with my constituents, the overwhelming majority have been in support of the government's position. In the days, weeks and months leading to events of today, opposition to this position in my riding was negligible. Admittedly, since the decision has been made, I have heard from some constituents who oppose it. I respect their opinions but disagree with them.

The disarmament of Iraq has begun with the U.S. forces launching a surgical attack against leadership targets in Baghdad last night. I ask all members, those citizens who are watching here today and indeed all Canadians, to take a moment for a short prayer or silent reflection for all those, from both sides, who will become involved in this conflict. As I indicated earlier, in the words of many veterans, war is hell. Let us pray for a quick end to hostilities and a lasting, productive peace.

[Multiculturalism, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the face of Canada is changing. According to the recently released Statistics Canada 2001 census, the total population of visible minorities was almost four million, or 13.4% of the total population. That is an increase from 11.2% in 1996.

Over the years police organizations throughout the country have evolved to meet the needs of our multicultural society. As society continues to become more diverse, police services will be required to respond to our changing demographics.

Could the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women explain to the House how her department is facilitating this?

[Haldimand War Memorial Hospital, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Haldimand War Memorial Hospital in my riding of Erie--Lincoln for its voluntary commitment to join Natural Resources Canada's energy innovators initiative.

Recognized by the Minister of Natural Resources as an energy innovator, Haldimand War Memorial Hospital has made a long term commitment to use energy efficiency to reduce costs and slow the growth of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

All sectors of Canada's economy are being called upon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to acknowledge and commend the Haldimand War Memorial Hospital for being a leader in this movement. I would also like to applaud Natural Resources Canada for its support of organizations such as the Haldimand War Memorial Hospital.

Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and to combat climate change has brought about effective and innovative programs, such as the energy innovators initiative, which will help pave the path to our future as a sustainable and energy efficient nation. Canadians everywhere are joining in the fight for sustainable development.

[Government Contracts, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Public Works and Government Services indicated that he would soon have some further information to provide about his department's administrative review of the sponsorship files.

Before the House adjourns for the weekend, could the minister tell us where the matter now stands?

[Housing, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the Governments of Canada and Ontario announced the allocation of 3,200 units for low to moderate income residents in 12 municipalities under the community rental housing program. The units were distributed to municipalities with the greatest need for affordable housing under the first phase of the Canada/Ontario affordable housing program agreement.

The affordable housing program will provide $489.42 million over the next five years to help increase the supply of much needed affordable housing in the province. Government of Canada funding of $244.72 million, together with matching contributions from the Government of Ontario, municipalities, and other private and non-private partners will help create an estimated 10,500 affordable housing units. All governments, federal, provincial and municipal, must work together to encourage investment in affordable housing.

I strongly urge the Minister of Finance and cabinet to support the extension of the residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, and the supporting communities partnership initiative, SCPI, as well as to continue funding commitments for affordable housing.