John Maloney

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my honourable colleague that it has become and is a very emotional issue. I agree with the situation and the little story that he told is a good reason for being there. Also, it is very emotional when our troops come home in a casket draped with a Canadian flag, and that is very emotional for many Canadians.

We are there for the right reasons and I am saying put a little water in the wine. I am referencing the need, desire, and how we hopefully have achieved consensus. Certainly, as the member is aware, our party supported a withdrawal by 2009, and giving NATO notice of that over a year ago. We did not do that. We are happy now that there is a firm date. Many of us may not be happy when that date is, but we have striven to reach a consensus, and we will continue to do so.

As I said, we do not question why our troops are there. We feel that there are some other countries that should be stepping up to the plate, as I indicated in my address. NATO is an organization of 26 nations. It is simply not right that Canadians should be taking it on the chin day after day when others are certainly most capable of doing that as well.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my comments today by acknowledging our tremendous debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Canadian Forces who risk their lives to create a safer and more secure world for Canadians and people throughout the globe.

The Liberal Party remains steadfast in our support for the Canadian Forces personnel stationed in Afghanistan as they work toward the noble goal of bringing peace and stability to this troubled region, and we recognize their accomplishments in this regard. When our forces return, we do and will afford them the appreciation and respect they have earned once again.

We are most cognizant of the lives of our sons and daughter given in combat to achieve this safer and more secure world. We do not want to undo all the good that they have done, not now, not ever. Further, we hope that the families of our soldiers who gave their lives find consolation.

I further wish to acknowledge the notable role our Canadian diplomats have played and continue to play in Afghanistan, especially Mr. Glyn Berry who made the supreme sacrifice on our behalf and on behalf of the Afghans.

It is important to realize that Canadians were also killed on 9/11 when members of al-Qaeda attacked the United States at the World Trade Centre and that these terrorists were trained in Afghanistan. If the NATO forces were to unilaterally withdraw, there is no doubt that al-Qaeda and the Taliban would walk right back in.

We have also arrested alleged insurgents in our own country, such as the 16 accused terrorists in Toronto. The entire globe is at risk of terrorist attacks, including Canada. Our involvement in Afghanistan is part of the war on terrorism. We are there to help eliminate the breeding grounds of terrorists and their activities. We are there to protect both countries and both peoples, Afghans and Canadians.

Canada made a commitment to the international community and especially to our NATO allies. Canada must honour this commitment. If Canada closed down our participation in the UN-mandated and NATO-led mission immediately, as the NDP and Bloc Québécois would have us do, we would take on the reputation of being a less than reliable ally in assisting nations that are struggling to move to democratic principles: the rule of law, human rights and the empowerment of women, including the equality of education for boys and girls.

An immediate withdrawal is also unrealistic. Deploying a replacement force in the wake of an immediate Canadian departure would be nearly impossible and would leave the Afghans at the mercy of the Taliban. We cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan as there is much to be done.

The Liberal opposition continues to support our Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan as part of a NATO force for the stated term of our nation's commitment. I believe it is important for Canada to play a role in building peace and security in the area so that reconstruction efforts can continue. This mission was initially multi-dimensional, embracing the 3D model, combining defence, diplomacy and development in a coordinated effort to bring long term peace and stability to a fragile state.

The Afghan people want peace and a future for themselves and their children. Canada must help facilitate this. I can support this kind of approach that reflects a Canadian philosophy.

All that being said, it is incumbent upon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member nations to preserve the rotation principle. Canadian troops have been performing most effectively, doing the heavy lifting in the combat zone of the bloody combat region. It is time for other partners to step up to the plate. Other nations must do their share. Other nations must take over these positions of responsibility. It is simply the fair, equitable and right thing to do.

In not doing so, member countries in future engagements will not take on such missions and the future of NATO itself could be at risk. I am confident, however, that our NATO partners will make the appropriate response, and we thank them for this.

The debate to this date has too often had the flavour of vicious partisanship, with more than a sprinkle of intemperate comments. It is time to tone down the rhetoric and time for all to put a little water in their wine. The Afghan issue should be above politics. It is time for a responsible change of direction.

The report of John Manley and his co-panellists have opened the door for a possible consensus, and we thank them for their contributions to the debate. We acknowledge their encouragement for greater transparency on issues surrounding the Afghanistan conflict, which will promote a better understanding of the situation by Canadians.

We must continue to be mindful of the need to respect international law and, in effecting the transfer of Afghan detainees, we must be mindful that the torture of enemy combatants by any military force cannot be tolerated.

As referenced in a recital to this motion under debate, which I feel we all can agree to, is an appreciation that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure, and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict.

We further recognize that in order to achieve this objective, it is essential that properly trained and equipped participants of their security apparatus, such as the army, police, judicial and correctional systems, be in place. Our military presence will help the Afghans achieve this end.

The motion calls for a continued presence in Kandahar until July 2011 on condition that the government notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011 with replacement by Afghan forces and the complete redeployment of our troops by December 2011. I would have preferred something sooner, much sooner, but I am pleased that a firm mandate has been established. I would not support an never-ending mission.

Further, the condition of rotation of an additional 1,000 NATO troops into Kandahar will allow our Canadian Forces to be deployed in a more balanced way to a return to mission co-priorities of training and reconstruction, in effect, a return to the 3Ds of defence, diplomacy and development. There is no exclusive military solution to this conflict. I have reservations, however, as to whether 1,000 additional troops will allow this to happen.

The conditions that the government must secure medium helicopter lift capacity and unmanned aerial vehicles will further protect our forces.

The motion also references other prudent measures, including the need to address the issue of the narco-economy that undermines progress in Afghanistan, the need to meet the highest international standards to protect the rights of detainees and a greater level of accountability, clarity and scrutiny so that all Canadians can be sure that our nation's contributions are continuing to be effective.

There has been a huge national discussion on Afghanistan, not only in the House but throughout the country, and it is time to bring this to a conclusion while being mindful that our future path will not be easy. I feel this motion reflects common ground between the Liberal official opposition and the Conservative government and provides clear direction in terms of engagement. The NDP and the Bloc advocate a position that is simply not tenable at this time.

[Health, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians, especially children, are being exposed to dangerous toxic products. Lead-based paint on children's toys as well as plastic bottles containing bisphenol A are threatening the health and safety of all citizens.

Bisphenol A is a chemical used in the creation of plastic food containers and baby bottles and has been known to cause many adverse health effects. The leaching of this chemical has led to trace amounts being found in human tissues and also has been associated with causing developmental problems, including cancer, obesity and early puberty, to name a few.

Some Canadian companies have already removed merchandise containing this toxic chemical from their shelves. Others are still looking to the federal government to provide guidance on the safety of such products.

I call on the government to take immediate action to ban harmful products of this nature from retailers' shelves and to prohibit such products from entering our country. The health and safety of Canadians must be protected without qualification.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very insightful question.

As I pointed out, the government has done nothing to address poverty and homelessness in our area.

The manufacturing sector in our region is on the decline and there is nothing in the budget to assist it.

The auto sector is very important for my riding, with manufacturing plants and auto parts. There is nothing to help that sector, except $50 million each year over five years. That is a pittance. It is simply not enough to help this major industry that is really driving the Ontario economy, which drives the economy of our country.

My friend mentioned the border. Under the Liberals we had an extensive border infrastructure program. We widened one of the crossings at Lewiston from four lanes to five lanes. We were on the cusp of another bridge being twinned. In advance of that we improved the plaza infrastructure on both the American side and the Canadian side so that the conduit to the United States would not be strangled. We moved forward on these insightful programs.

I found it most interesting too that the NDP criticized us for failing to address some of the programs like child care. It was that party that voted the Liberal government down in a non-confidence motion. We would have had such programs as child care had the NDP not voted us out of office.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a very interesting question and I think the answer is obvious.

This budget is all smoke and mirrors. It is fluff. As I said, it is a non-event. To really come out and support it is of no consequence. There are more demanding issues in this country than that we go to the polls. We will go to the polls on an issue that is of importance to this country, not a do nothing budget, simply not.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Conservative 2008 budget. I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The sad reality is the budget will likely be one of the least memorable in recent federal history. Its most glitzy tax cutting measure was the $5,000 a year savings account with interest accruing tax free. Over time, it may assist some wealthy seniors in meeting their ongoing savings needs, particularly after age 71 when they are required to begin drawing down their RRSPs. However, it is still a pale response to the income trust debacle.

The savings account will be of no assistance to low and middle income earners, including many young families and seniors who cannot afford the luxury of savings. The amount of interest earned at today's rates will be pennies in any event. On the other hand, with a slowing economy, additional spending by Canadians would help to stimulate the economy. This is a short-sighted program for our current economic conditions.

Speaking in general terms, the budget is a hodgepodge of very low dollar spending initiatives, with no apparent theme or direction: 58 spending initiatives in total with 55 of these being less than the cost of a federal election.

In 2006 the Conservatives inherited the largest surplus and the best economy in Canadian history. Now after two years and a few budgets and economic updates, they have spent it all and moved the country, once again, to the brink of deficit spending. The Conservatives must like living on the edge, as the country returns to Mulroney economics, something that the Liberals will never do when we return to government.

The story in the budget, however, is what is not mentioned. Let us talk about the crisis in manufacturing.

Canada's economy is hurting badly. Ontario's is hurting worse and Niagara's economy is worse yet. A St. Catharines-Thorold Chamber of Commerce report on manufacturing in Niagara notes that currently manufacturing accounts for 14% of Niagara's economy, down from 29% over the past two decades. Niagara's overall employment growth has been less than 1% since 2000. This average places Niagara near the bottom of the province in statistics related to full time employment rates and employment income levels in the province.

What does the Minister of Finance do? He tells all the world that Ontario is the last place in which business would invest. In public comments made earlier this week, the Minister of Finance claimed Ontario's manufacturing industry was suffering because the province faced the highest corporate tax rates in Canada. However, the minister's claim is nothing but a distortion of reality. Only four provinces have lower corporate tax rates than Ontario for manufacturers and processors. In terms of attracting new investment, the nearest competing U.S. states, including Michigan and New York, face corporate tax rates 12% higher than Ontario's and Ontario continues to lower the tax rates.

The budget's paltry support for the manufacturing sector has prompted the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, in frustration, to explain that it has received only recycled ideas and pocket change at a critical time when it needs tangible solutions. Out of a $6 billion budget, manufacturing received $150 million.

In my region health care remains one of the major areas of concern. Physicians lobbying on Parliament Hill today will tell us that there are five million Canadians without a family doctor, that England has twice as many physicians per capita than we do, that we have over 4,000 medical students training outside our country because there are insufficient spaces in our medical schools and most of these will not come home to work, that we have foreign trained doctors within Canada who need assistance meeting our standards and that we have an aging doctor population leaning toward retirement. It is urgent that we address this. Our emergency room crisis, patient wait times and physician health care work shortages are all crying out for help. Sadly, there is none. Sadly, no one is listening.

There is nothing in the budget to address poverty and homelessness. A poverty report prepared by the region of Niagara stated that approximately one-third of visits to food banks in the Niagara region were made by children. In 2005 just over 4,000 households utilized 13 food banks across the Niagara region, and the situation continues to decline.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara owns or manages over 5,500 housing units that are subsidized, of which 2,200 are occupied by families whose average family income is $15,680. The poverty line for a family of four in the Niagara region is $27,500. The need for housing assistance is very high within Niagara. There were 4,000 households on the waiting list in June of 2006. The number of rental units has simply not kept pace with demand.

The huge negative impact of poverty and homelessness in my riding has been left to flounder and fester. The budget's silence was deafening. Nothing for the less fortunate in our society. Perhaps government members should visit a hostel, soup kitchen or food bank and look directly into the eyes and faces of those who cannot fend for themselves, for whatever reason. In the region of Niagara there is an urgent demand for homeless spaces. These figures are compounded across the country and the totals are staggering.

Surely the measure of our worth is diminished when we fail to take initiatives to help. Community-minded volunteer organizations, donors and churches are struggling under a terrible burden, but the government walks by, completely oblivious to the pain and suffering.

What have the Conservatives accomplished during their time? They have accomplished very little. They continue to spend while eroding the tax base. With economists across the country warning that cuts to the GST would be the worst tax cuts to consider, the Conservatives blundered ahead to reduce the GST by two percentage points, all for the sake of what they felt was politically astute for their party, not what was economically good for Canadians and the country.

As the party that introduced the GST, perhaps the Conservatives felt guilty. They have a lot to feel guilty about, but such poor tax cuts are not the way to redemption.

The Conservative child care program has not produced any new child care spaces that young couples and single parents so desperately need. The reality is it was simply a baby bonus program with no vision, no direction and no spaces. Young mothers and fathers were most appreciative of the money until they filed their income tax returns last spring and began to realize the Conservative child care program was all smoke and mirrors. This wonderful $100 a month per child is taxable. They are not pleased that they have been duped once again.

The Prime Minister has become the largest spending prime minister in Canadian history, and now the cupboard is bare. What did Canadians really get for it? Are they really better off? Canadians will send a resounding no in the next election.

As our biggest trading partner, the United States, continues to spiral into recession, our economy, so connected with them, continues to be pulled down. There is also the economic uncertainty of a high Canadian dollar and a retiring skilled workforce. Our country is heading into the perfect storm at a time when no one in the Conservative government is at the helm. Any shock to revenue or any unanticipated spending initiative will put Canada back into deficit.

What has the government done to prepare the country for a possible economic downturn? It has done simply nothing. Are we surprised? We should not be. The finance minister drove the province of Ontario into deficit, all the while claiming a balanced budget as his Conservative government headed into a provincial election. The smile of the victorious McGuinty government soon turned sour when independent auditors discovered a huge deficit. So much for openness, transparency and accountability.

Canadians are very concerned that Conservatives have a projected surplus of $2.3 billion for this year and $1.3 billion for next year, which is well below the $3 billion contingency fund that Liberals consider the bare minimum to cushion against unanticipated economic shocks. It has been said that our country is one SARS crisis away from a deficit, and this is if one believes the Conservative projections are accurate. The finance minister's prior track record of misrepresentation makes me and the entire country uncomfortable.

Moreover, the Conservative government lost an opportunity to address Canada's infrastructure deficit by failing to act on the Liberals' proposal to use $7 billion from this year's surplus to fund infrastructure programs across the country. As municipalities beg for financial assistance to address the compelling infrastructure deficit, as bridges collapse and aging water treatment plants malfunction, the government plods blindly, seemingly oblivious, to the cries from our communities. Let us not forget the positive impact of well-paying construction jobs that infrastructure projects would have provided.

Actually, the Liberal opposition should be flattered that many of the budget initiatives were driven by them.

It was the Liberals who first created the gas tax transfer to municipalities in 2005 and pledged to make it permanent over a year ago.

It was the Liberals who advocated direct support to Canada's ailing auto industry. The Conservatives' $250 million over five years to provide research and development is simply a pittance.

It was the Liberals who committed to desperately needed improvements in public transit. Is a rail line from Peterborough to Toronto through vast tracts of agricultural lands and small hamlets our country's biggest priority? Is there enough potential passenger usage to make it financially viable?

It was the Liberals who committed to funding to have more police across our country.

It was the Liberals who committed to improving cash flow, supporting livestock producers and providing direct payment for hog farmers.

It was the Liberals who advocated reversing the Conservative government's previous cuts to university councils and research programs. It was the Liberals who urged the modernization of the Canada Student Loans Act.

We are pleased the Conservatives are adopting prudent Liberal policies, but the insufficient funding, because of an ill-advised national debt payment, will detract from their effectiveness.

I suggest the budget is a non-event, paying lip service to worthy causes such as the environment, students and crime, but by no means is it a green budget, an education budget or a law and order budget. There is no economic stimulus or poverty initiatives to help Welland riding. There is nothing of great substance. It is simply underwhelming. After two years, the Harper government has exhausted its legislative agenda and has lost its drive.

[Automotive Industry, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, more than 100 workers in the Niagara region have sent letters to their local Conservative MP, who is the current justice minister, to share their concerns about the crisis facing the auto sector. The answer they got showed how little their elected representatives in Ottawa care about their uncertain situation.

Why do highly skilled workers in the Niagara Peninsula have to beg for assistance from the government only to get the back of the hand from the minister?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe on his very balanced speech this evening.

Could he perhaps elaborate on how he feels the government could move forward in reducing the demand for drugs, as well as reducing the supply, as he has indicated? Could the member give us some specifics on how we can approach this war on crime by reducing the demand?

[Environment Canada, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the only person at Environment Canada that needs a muzzle is the minister, who keeps barking like a prime ministerial pit bull.

First the government gagged Environment Canada scientist Mark Tushingham for trying to talk about his new science fiction novel, then it eliminated the position of science adviser to the Prime Minister, and Arthur Carty resigned in disgust.

When will the government realize that fearless advice is the cornerstone of our public service, and that freedom of thought and speech are part of the bedrock of our society?

[Environment Canada, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the contempt that this Conservative government has for the public service is shocking. This morning we learned that scientists at every level at Environment Canada are being muzzled by the environment minister. Our scientists cannot even explain to a reporter what an endangered species is without first getting approved lines from the minister.

What is the government afraid of? Why does it insist on bullying and muzzling the best scientists in the world?