Jim Maloway

[Petitions, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which is signed by Canadians, is calling on the government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the earthquake in Chile.

As the Speaker knows, the earthquake in Chile occurred on February 27, 2010. It was an 8.8 magnitude earthquake, which was huge. It occurred in southern Chile and the Chilean Canadian community has been holding fundraising events across the country and more particularly in Winnipeg where it has raised $10,000 in the last event.

As well, the people are getting very concerned that time is going by. They want the same treatment given to the earthquake victims in Chile as the Prime Minister did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the earthquake in Chile.

[Petitions, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers on all Canadian carriers including charters anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address issues such as late and misplaced baggage, would require all inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations, and new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to follow for compensation.

This type of legislation has been in Europe now for actually a lot longer than five years but certainly five years in its current form. The question is, why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment on flights in Europe than in Canada itself? In fact, if the airlines follow the rules, it will cost the airlines nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her presentation today on this 880 page Bill C-9 and for her terrific speech this morning on private member's Bill C-471.

She also made a presentation to the House on June 11, 2009, in which she talked about equal pay for women. She pointed out that women reach retirement age without being able to benefit fully from the income they ought to have had. She stated that at the present time women are paid 70% to 80% of what men are paid, so all of their working lives they are carrying with them a 20% to 30% shortfall. Therefore, when they get to retirement, they receive approximately 42% of what they earned when they were working and are missing a huge amount.

In other words, it is not just an issue of earning less money throughout their working lives. It shows up again in the pensions they receive in their 20 or 30 years of retirement. The government has not taken initiatives or any measures in this 880 page bill to deal with the pension issues of retired Canadians.

Would the member like to expand on that area?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for her speech today, and certainly the reaction she is getting indicates she is making a very controversial point and winning the argument hands down.

As the member said, the bill is 880 pages long. We are talking about an omnibus bill. We are talking about a sneaky government, sneaking in things that it does not make sense to put into a budget bill. We are talking about the post office remailers that were brought in twice already by the Conservatives. They cannot get the bill through the House, so they have snuck it through under a budget bill and declared it a confidence vote.

I know the member has been involved for years supporting seniors and looking at seniors' issues and she is very interested in the whole issue with seniors and the CPP and issues related to the improvement of workplace pensions in this country and a better life for seniors in their retirement. What does the budget do for seniors?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by and interested in the member's comments regarding satellite telecommunications. which is a serious issue for us to be looking at.

The government's approach to the economy and its whole direction is to reduce the barriers and allow for more foreign ownership of the whole economy, let alone the satellite area.

Would the member expand on this whole area and on how serious an economic effect this could have on the Canadian economy?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I said that it was a good sign that one of the big major banks in the last month had its annual shareholders' meeting and it invited the shareholders. That is a good sign to at least take a look at, not necessarily vet and approve, the salary of the chief executive officer, but at least they presented the information to the shareholders.

However, that should be regulated. Guidelines should be put in place. We should not just leave it up to the banks to do it whenever they feel like inviting the shareholders. That is not the way it should be. The shareholders own the shares to the company and they should have a right to find out what the CEOs' corporate benefits plans are all about and how much the CEOs are making.

That was the first bank to do that but I was told that the other banks will be following suit. However, that has nothing to do with the government. The government's laissez-faire, hands-off approach to the economy is essentially the attitude that the banks are private and they should deal with their own issues. I am saying no. In this one case, the bank did invite the shareholders in to take a look at their salaries, but they did not offer the shareholders the right to make any changes to them or reject them in any way, shape or form.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the government do not like hearing about it and obviously the Liberal members are very nervous about it too. The Liberals had their big expensive think-tank last week in Montreal and ended up coming up with an NDP position, basically that corporate taxes should not be lowered in a race to the bottom, that there is a role for reasonable corporate taxation.

The Liberal Party now realizes that, and I am happy to welcome them on-board in accepting that just lowering corporate income tax will not solve the problems of this country. It just takes revenue away from health care and other social programs which we all agree need to be improved. However, we will not be able to improve on them if we keep lowering the taxation rate for corporations. Someone needs to pay the taxes.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the government talks a great line about reducing taxes, the reality is that it is increasing taxes in ways that the hon. member has indicated. It is raising the security fees. There is more than one way to raise taxes. A lot of governments say that they are reducing taxes but meanwhile user fees are going up throughout the whole system of the government.

We say that the financial services industry needs more regulation, not less, and that guidelines should be put in place for bank profits and the salaries of the bank executives.

Why can other jurisdictions in the world operate with reasonable CEO benefits and salaries, where in North America it is the law of the jungle? We have CEOs earning $10 million a year. How is that fair to working people in this country?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is pretending that somehow it is a big tax cutter. It is a big tax cutter for corporations but it has increased taxes. A 50% security fee will be paid for air flights. This will make airline passengers even happier with the government when they start paying their 50% security fee.

We have the whole issue with the debit card industry where the government has basically sat on its hands. It says that it will regulate the debit card industry but it is all on the basis of guidelines. I do not know too many of my constituents who are happy with the way they are treated by the credit card companies. They are looking to the government to do something about it but the government sits on its hands and does nothing.

The government is not consumer friendly at all. I would like somebody in this House to tell me one consumer issue where the government has sided with the consumers and not the industry. On the air passenger bill of rights, the government sides with the industry. The rest of us in opposition voted for the consumer. In the area of credit cards, the government sides with the companies and actually against small business because it is allowing these companies to increase the fees that the companies charge to small business in this country.

This is all being done under a Conservative government. The member does not need to talk to me about reducing taxes. The government is actually increasing taxes.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling.

I think I was just hitting a very sensitive topic for the members opposite, because no sensible person in this country can be happy with the five banks earning $15 billion and having their presidents paid $6.2 million when other jurisdictions, like the European Union, have restrictions on what corporate executives earn. I believe it has been a long-time tradition in Japan that corporate executives have had limitations on what they can earn.

Just recently one of the banks did indicate at its shareholders' meeting that it is now taking input from the shareholders as to what executives are being paid. They are saying that they will not let them vet what they give to the executives but at least they will listen to the shareholders.

It is about time the government starting taking some action here and putting in some guidelines and some restrictions on runaway corporate benefits and corporate salaries, especially when it is giving them extra incentives by reducing their taxes.

As I have indicated, this is an omnibus bill. The government is introducing all sorts of extra measures in here that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. One of the bills was the post office remailers, which has been brought in under various bills over the last three or four years, and as early as last year.

Since the government cannot get that bill through the House, it sticks it in Bill C-9 and basically defies the opposition to vote against it and cause an election. Maybe that is what the government really wants, an election.