John Maloney

[Malnutrition, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year the focus of the United Nations Children's Fund, commonly known as UNICEF, is on child malnutrition.

Malnutrition is a world problem. It is an invisible killer which affects 800 million children annually. Incredibly and sadly, more than half of child deaths worldwide can be attributed to malnutrition. This is unmatched by any other infectious disease since the black death and, further, those who survive are usually left vulnerable to infectious disease, illness and intellectual disability.

The right to nutrition is a matter of international law. Agreements such as the 1989 convention on the rights of the child, ratified by 191 countries including Canada, recognized the right of all children to have the highest attainable standards of health, including the right to good nutrition.

I urge the Government of Canada to support UNICEF and honour the provisions of our international declarations by helping overcome this silent killer of the world's children. Action against malnutrition is both imperative and possible. No child should be hungry in this world of plenty. No child should be hungry in Canada.

[Gun Control, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations go out to the Quebec Court of Appeal for its good sense in ruling that the four year minimum penalty for committing an offence with a firearm does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The automatic sentence was part of the federal government's tough gun control package that was introduced in 1995.

Prior to the amendments, the one year minimum penalty for using a weapon while committing certain crimes was supposed to be in addition to the sentence for the crime itself. The new provision was challenged by a first time offender and the judge wisely ruled that the four year minimum did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge continued to say that the mandatory sentence was severe but it was not disproportionate and did not offend the standards of decency.

I welcome this decision as we try to cope with the rights of victims. The victim is much more traumatized by robbery with a firearm than without. The four year mandatory is the right way to deal with the trauma imposed. The four year mandatory is the right way to go.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the sixth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum hosted by the Republic of Korea which took place January 7 to January 10, 1998.

The Canadian delegation was very pleased with the outcome of the meeting, in particular the adoption of its two resolutions, namely the resolution on the banning of anti-personnel land mines which strongly encouraged all APPF signatory states to ratify the convention before the end of 1998, and the resolution on the use of technology which encouraged the development of technologies.

I wish to thank Their Excellencies Hang Kyung Kim, the Republic of Korea's ambassador to Canada, and Michel Perrault, the Canadian ambassador to Korea and their staffs for their assistance to us.

I also wish to thank the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as the delegation members and staff.

[Drugs, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, no country is immune from the ravages of the problem of illicit drugs, whether it be heroin from the golden triangle, cocaine from South America or cannabis from around the globe. It could also be the new strains of drugs being consumed by the youth of today.

One of the major tasks facing governments is protecting their citizens from drug related crime. Too often chronic drug users resort to crime to sustain their habits. Reducing the number of dependent drug users through treatment can substantially reduce the level of suburban crime and violence.

We must also address the problems of those who are affected by drug abuse and institute programs to assist them in overcoming their addictions.

International fora continue to be used as a platform for accusations of lack of action between producer and consumer countries. It is important to recognize that the social, health and legal problems caused by illegal drugs affect all countries regardless of the degree of involvement.

It is time for all nations, regardless of the group into which they fall, to work together to address this problem as a unified team. We need to say no to drugs.

[Justice, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Ontario Court of Appeal on its insight while ruling on the “no means no” rape shield law.

When the new amendments were introduced and became more commonly known as the “no means no” rape shield law, defence lawyers and civil libertarians predicted the new rules would be found unconstitutional.

This provision restricts the ability of defence lawyers to question sexual assault complainants about their previous sexual history, even with that of the accused.

In a major decision the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the rape shield provision does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms.

Regarding the constitutionality of the new provision, the three judge panel decided: “The admission of evidence of the prior sexual activity of a complainant clearly infringes the complainant's privacy interests and these should be protected to the fullest extent possible while maintaining an accused's right to make full answer and defence”.

This decision is a sound and sensible precedent. It makes good law.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Medicine Hat. He understands that there are some 1,500 letters when it comes to the SBLA. I noticed with interest that about 11% of the small business loans are in his province alone.

I have a question for the member. Since the Alberta treasury branch's group also participates in the SBLA, would the member and his leader from that province be willing to suggest that all the people in that province should not be participating in the SBLA?

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to rise this evening to address the question of the invitation to Canada by the United States of America to participate in possible military actions in the Middle East before—and I emphasize before—a decision is made by this government.

Sound and reasoned arguments must be made and responded to. The consequences are too great.

On occasion, critics question the role of members of Parliament, suggesting that they do little to earn their remuneration. To such detractors I say stand in our shoes this evening as we deliberate Canada's role in this impending crisis with Iraq, as we consider the possible involvement of the well trained, loyal and brave men and women of our armed forces and, just as important, the impact on the families of our service personnel: wives, children, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.

Let us also not forget the innocent civilian population in Iraq who could suffer because of the folly of their leader. Let us be mindful of the cost of war in human terms, in economic terms and in ecological terms.

The responsibility of committing Canada to a military response to the current crisis in the gulf is a heavy onus, a commitment that could jeopardize world security, that could lead to war, possibly a third world war if Russian rhetoric can be believed. This onus is most formidable.

We recall the tremendous Canadian contribution to the gulf war in the winter of 1991 when 3,837 Canadian men and 237 Canadian women served with distinction. We are grateful that there was not a single Canadian casualty or prisoner of war taken during that conflict. Tonight I find myself asking, would we be so fortunate a second time?

How have we arrived at the brink once again?

The international community has generally backed the United States in its struggle to get Iraq to comply with agreements and orders issued at the end of the gulf war in 1991. More recently, the United States has had trouble rallying support from its former gulf war allies on military strategy for more air strikes.

Iraq began this latest round of tension by refusing to deal with the United Nations weapons inspection teams as long as the teams included Americans. After weeks of exchanging words with Iraq, the United Nations gave up in mid-November and pulled its teams out of the country.

After negotiations involving Russia, France and other countries, the inspectors returned to Iraq, but continued to face day to day frustrations. Weapons inspectors are checking for the presence of weapons of mass destruction, including those linked to biological, chemical and nuclear warfare.

Baghdad believes the weapons inspection process is taking far too long. Iraqis accuse the Americans on the multinational team of being spies.

Until the weapons inspections are finished, the United Nations will not lift economic sanctions against Iraq. Those trade barriers have been in place since August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We have arrived at a stalemate.

What do we fear? We fear Hussein, a dictator, a leader of a regime that has no respect for human rights and human values and who has brutalized his own citizens, including the use of poison gas against dissident Kurds and who has no hesitation in risking the safety and security of Iraqi citizens once again for his own purposes. We fear a regime that is alleged to have tested germ warfare agents on prisoners and refuses United Nations inspectors access to dispel such reports.

We fear a regime that launched a germ warfare program and is said to have stockpiled an arsenal of biological weaponry, a host of lethal viruses, bacteria and deadly toxins, the victims of which would suffer a horrible death and again a regime that refuses to let United Nations weapons inspectors conduct their work to dispel such reports.

We fear a regime that over the years has been caught with evidence of continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and again refuses to let the United Nations weapons inspectors conduct their work to confirm such weapons do not exist.

Let us make no mistake, diplomacy rather than military power to end the crisis is the preferred solution, the solution we hope for and the solution we pray for. Canada has an enviable and well earned reputation as a peacekeeper. In the tradition of Lester Pearson, the role of warrior may be somewhat alien but it is one that we are capable of and will not shirk from.

We must be more than thorough in our deliberations. Are there compromises and positions that we have not explored? Could the UN consider lifting humanitarian sanctions which have adversely and sadly affected the civilian population of Iraq and which have led to death and disability for innumerable men, women and children, a record that I am not proud of.

Can we do this without jeopardizing the resolve, strength of purpose and unity in having Hussein comply with the United Nations resolutions which we deem so necessary? Are we satisfied that they are so necessary? Can Canada take an active role to negotiate a solution satisfactory to all? We have done much but can we not do more? Can we not work harder to prevent this pending conflict, to promote a peaceful resolution. All diplomatic measures must be explored and explored to the point of exhaustion. But if it fails, military action should be supported under the United Nations umbrella.

Canada respects the United Nations. Canada respects international laws. Canada respects agreements signed thereunder. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein does not. Under the United Nations security council resolution 687 of April 1991 which set out the ceasefire terms for ending the gulf war, Iraq is obliged to “accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range of over 150 kilometres; and research, development and manufacturing facilities associated with the above; and to undertake not to develop such weapons in the future”. One might say that is not terribly difficult to comply with.

Despite constant Iraqi deceit, concealment, harassment and obstruction, the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM has succeeded in destroying 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents, 48 operational missiles, 6 missile launchers, 30 special warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of items of chemical warfare production equipment. Iraq originally claimed that much of it was for peaceful use but later admitted its real purpose.

Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure. UNSCOM discovered that Iraq had the capability to produce VX on an industrial scale and produced four tonnes. Work was also going into numerous other agents such as sarin, tabun and mustard gas. I could go on and on with examples of Iraq's blatant violations of its ceasefire terms.

UNSCOM is concerned that Iraq may still have operational scud type missiles with chemical and biological warheads. Critical missile components, warheads and propellants are not accounted for nor are 17 tonnes of growth media for biological warfare agents, enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits it had. Key items of chemical warfare production equipment are also missing.

The question is can Hussein be trusted. The answer is terribly obvious. In the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “There is a clear and present danger. Hussein's flagrant violation of the United Nations and international law is intolerable, unacceptable and must cease”. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the United Nations security council resolutions, he must be held responsible and accountable for the pending action.

We earnestly seek a compromise, a negotiated settlement, a diplomatic solution. Yes, we wish to avoid war and we must earnestly work to achieve these ends. If this is not possible, Hussein must know that Canada will stand united with the UN forces. We must be prepared to act and if action is necessary, we will.

[Petitions, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am privileged to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the electors of Erie—Lincoln.

Noting that there is an increasing number of Canadians who can no longer tolerate the degrading effects of obscenity, and noting further that pornography is not acceptable in our communities, the petitioners request that Parliament legislate stricter guidelines concerning the rating, distribution and display of pornographic materials.

[Justice, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all too often there is a most important but ignored element of the criminal justice system, the victim. All too often we hear the plights of those individuals forgotten by the system that seeks to obtain justice on their behalf. Strange but true.

While the Criminal Code contains provisions dealing with victims, it is simply not enough.

While all provinces and both territories have provisions for victim rights, it is still not enough. It is time for a comprehensive study and action.

The federal government will soon conduct a wide ranging consultation with Canadians in all parts of the country on the issue of the victims in the criminal justice system.

I welcome the participation of all Canadians and especially those residents from my riding of Erie—Lincoln at a series of spring town hall meetings on this very important subject.

The final results of this consultation will be a report containing committee findings and recommendations, after which I will continue to press for the introduction of a comprehensive victim bill of rights.

Canada and its victims of crimes are crying out for fair, compassionate and sensitive redress. It is long overdue.

[Youth Employment Strategy, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment thousands of young lives are on hold as the future leaders of the country search for jobs.

Young people in Canada are the best educated, most literate and most technologically adept generation in history. Today's rapidly changing economy and competitive job market make it more difficult for inexperienced, undereducated or undertrained youth to find meaningful employment.

Many believe their education is deemed worthless by employers as they are caught in the vicious circle of no job without experience and no experience without a job.

Youth tell us they need improved access to education and training and more information about Canada's labour markets. The Canadian economy needs their energy and talents. They deserve a chance to prove themselves and a chance to acquire work experience.

In response, the government has created the youth employment strategy aimed at helping young people gain the experience necessary to find meaningful employment. While this initiative should be applauded, I challenge the government to increase the scope and visibility of the project so that tomorrow's leaders can have a chance to develop their full potential today.