Jim Maloway

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 40 years of successive Liberal governments that have promised 0.7% of gross national income would be contributed to developing nations, never, in fact, met those targets.

Earlier today, the minister said that she and the government could not support the resolution because it was anti-American and that it would reopen the abortion debate.

Would the member like to comment on the government's excuse that it cannot support the resolution today because it is anti-American?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, while we in the NDP welcome this new-found interest in the health of mothers and children in the developing world, we would also like to bring the focus back to the situation of women and children in Canada. Canada is among the wealthiest nations in the world, yet 70% of Inuit preschool children live in homes where there is not enough food. There are many mothers in Canada who live in unsafe places, who are going without food, electricity or heat because of persistent deep poverty.

Now that the government has committed to catching up with other wealthy nations on maternal aid, will it commit to putting women and children first in Canada as well?

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2010]

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

The Chilean community has been quite active in fundraising. There was a social event in Winnipeg on March 6, which raised $10,000. This past Saturday, March 20, at the University of Manitoba, 1,000 tickets were sold to a follow-up fundraiser.

When will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the earthquake victims in Chile?

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.

The first is signed by dozens of Canadians calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would also address issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The airlines will have to inform passengers of any flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airport and the airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process they have to follow to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing.

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

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member and the government sat back while the five Canadian banks made $15 billion last year during a recession. The government and the member sat back while the CEO of the Bank of Nova Scotia made $9.7 million last year. The CEO of the Bank of Montreal made $7.45 million and the CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada made $10.4 million. Does the member or the government support this corporate greed? If not, what are they going to do about it?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member is conversant on almost every topic that we discuss in Parliament.

I want to go a little further on the government's mismanagement of the border issues. It has messed up on the passport issue and the Nexus program and now the government announced on page 14 of the throne speech that it is going to introduce a new biometric passport. It has not even sorted out the current problems and now it is going to charge ahead with a biometric passport which presumably is going to have some sort of fingerprint or iris scan system.

Before the government embarks on that, it has to recognize that it is going to have to negotiate with organizations worldwide that deal with passports. It has to have the proper standards so that these passports can be read by machines in all the other countries in the world.

This is something that is not going to happen for the next 10 years. Why does the government not solve the problems that we currently have first?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident that the government is mismanaging border issues between Canada and the United States. Tourism businesses in Canada are suffering because of a slowdown in cross-border tourism. Part of this now has to do with the rising dollar. It is going to make life even tougher in the tourist camps this summer.

The government had a window of opportunity to negotiate with the Americans and reduce the cost of passports, perhaps a two for one or by cutting the price in half for six months, but it has not done that. It had an opportunity to get the passport office involved in coming in with the equivalent of enhanced drivers' licences at a lower cost. It did not do that. It fobbed it off on the provinces. Provinces like Manitoba have had to incur a large cost in developing these forms of identification, which are not being used very widely right now.

I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with the observation that the government has not done the right thing in not negotiating with the Americans for some better—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer my question. Clearly, she and the government support these obscene bank profits and the salaries that come with them for the executives.

One of the banks just recently brought its compensation package to its annual meeting just as information for the shareholders. It is not giving the shareholders veto power or even approval power but at least it is showing it to them, which is a little more than the government is doing.

The government is sitting back, letting nature take its course and letting these so-called private business people make ridiculously high profits and high salaries at a time when people are suffering in this country.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the presentation by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells on the throne speech.

I notice that 800,000 people are on employment insurance in this country, and many of them will be running out of employment insurance over the next few months. The unemployment rate, at 8.2%, will be increasing to 8.5% this year. The government is absolutely silent when it comes to the atrocious bank profits of last year and the atrocious salaries of some of the CEOs.

The government's answer is to sit back and do nothing, other than to freeze the pay of the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. That is cold comfort to all the people I mentioned before who are living on reduced salaries or employment insurance.

When the CEO of the Bank of Nova Scotia made $9.7 million in 2009, does the member and the government not think it is time to put some limitations not only on bank profits but on the salaries of these CEOs?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech, and I know he is probably interested in the whole issue of the Canadian securities regulator, which is on page 8 of the English version of the speech.

Certainly Alberta and Quebec and other provinces over the years have been historically opposed to a national securities regulator for a number of reasons. One is that it has been a provincial jurisdiction, and clearly if the provinces are going to give up some jurisdiction, they are going to be getting something in return, so probably some sort of a deal is being made.

My argument has been all along that the structures are really not important. It is who is running the structures that is the key here. So if we make the argument that somehow the local provincial regulators have not been effective and have not been doing a good job for the last few years, and we simply take the same people and put them into a national structure and do not appoint aggressive people who want to do a job, we are not going to be any further ahead by going with a national structure. For example, Conrad Black was put in jail by the Americans, not by the Canadians, and all his white-collar crimes were committed in Canada.

If we are going to have a national securities regulator, then we should have one with teeth, with aggressive people who are not hired from the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.

I would like to get the member's comments on that particular point. I know it is going to be an opt-in situation—