Jim Maloway

[Petitions, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who call upon the government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the 8.8 magnitude earthquake, which occurred on February 27 in southern Chile.

The community has mobilized and has held fundraising events. One such event was held on Saturday, March 6 in Winnipeg where $10,000 was raised. A follow-up fundraiser will be held on Saturday, March 20 at the University of Manitoba. One thousand tickets have been sold for this fundraiser.

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

[Petitions, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition deals with Bill C-310. Dozens of Canadians call upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The bill 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 addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all advertising.

Legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should an Air Canada passenger receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada? Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airport and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

[International Aid, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the earthquake and aftershocks that hit Chile have left the country and its people devastated. As of yet there are no federal funds matching what Canadians have donated to the relief efforts. No Canadian warships loaded with supplies or talk of waiving immigration rules. Simply put, our response has been embarrassing.

After the earthquake in Haiti, not only did Canadians donate generously, but the government matched donations and sent aid immediately. Why is the same not happening for Chile?

[Canada Labour Code, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I just got carried away there. I thought that perhaps there was some hope that the government minister would concentrate on consulting widely before he brings in the government bill.

We look forward to seeing what it has to say. But by no means should we ever defer to the government and somehow take this bill out of circulation just because it feels that it should be taken out.

I want to say that victims' rights is a fairly recent development. I know the women's movement has had a lot to do with victims' right. After 32 years in the insurance business, I know that we have had a tremendous number of break-ins over the years. People have tried to discover what the resolution was to their claim.

Back in the 1980s when there was a break-in and people tried to find out what the resolution was, they were abruptly told by the police, “No, that is all between us and the justice system. I guess you will have to find out about by reading it in the newspaper.”

I am very pleased to recognize that, in Manitoba anyway, through the 11 years of the Conservative Filman government and the 10 years of the Gary Doer government that there has been considerable progress made in the area of victims' rights. That is something I think we can all agree with, that victims are the most important people in the process here. They should be handled correctly.

This member has done a terrific job on this bill. She deserves full credit for this bill. We should do our utmost to congratulate her and help her out. I know my colleague who spoke on this bill last time did have some questions; it was more a matter of clarification. The member for Hamilton Mountain was hoping for some question and answer time at the end to get answers to some questions she had, merely for clarification purposes. I think those can be resolved when we get to committee.

[Canada Labour Code, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill, Bill C-343.

It was only December 10 that we were all assembled here. Primarily the same players who are making speeches tonight were making speeches that night. After that whole process, the Prime Minister prorogued the House, and here we are back again to repeat where we left off.

I have to commiserate with the member when the parliamentary secretary says to be patient, that the government is going to deal with the issue, is going to bring in a bill that she will like, so maybe she should drop her bill and give the government leeway to bring in its own bill. The same result may happen again. The Prime Minister may prorogue the House or we may get into an election and the government will escape once again.

I am mindful of the social programs in Canada being somewhat behind those in other countries. For example, the national health care system in England, I believe, was brought in in 1949 right after the war when the economy was in bad shape. England had the foresight to bring in a national health care program. In Canada it was 1966.

France has a terrific health care program, social program. For those members who have not seen Michael Moore's movie Sicko, I think it is worth seeing. He profiles France's system, where people who have cancer are treated. This particular gentleman, after his recovery, was sent to the Riviera for three months to recover. In France, pregnant women have people who come in and do the laundry and cook meals. Members can see it is a totally different thought process, a different approach than we have in North America.

In France, the Scandinavian countries and England, the approach is more to try to stay healthy, and people get through their lives and are more productive if they are healthy in body and mind. The North American approach seems to be the opposite. It is basically the rat race, the little hamster on the wheel. We race our way to the end of our lives, perform our work and have as little government as possible.

Canada has the right wing, the neo-Reaganites I guess we would call them, trying to roll back the clock. I can just imagine if these people had a majority government. The country has been saved now twice from a Conservative majority, and I really am very happy about that. Hopefully we can save the country in the future from a Conservative majority. The Conservative agenda is to roll things back. We see it right now with the race to the bottom in corporate tax rates. There is no enemy out there, but I guess the Conservatives see one.

The United States has a corporate tax rate of 35%. What did the Conservative government do? It took the rate down to 15%. That is supposed to create jobs, but it has no proof that that is being done.

Just look at the parliamentary secretary's arguments. I read Hansard and I was here when he spoke back on December 10. He was talking about how this bill is going to cost $400 million and saying, whoa, that is scary and we cannot do this. First of all, how does he quantify that?

With all the crime bills the Conservative government is bringing in, the parliamentary secretary has said the crime rate will go down. If that is the case, then all the great crime bills it is going to bring in will reduce the crime rates in the country, so the cost for the bill should be even less. But no. He obviously has a different view of where the crime rates are going because while the proponent of the bill suggests that the cost will be around $50 million, he says it is $400 million. He has it eight times as high. What does he think, that the crime rate is going to go up eight times, that we have to incur costs because of this bill?

I would recommend to the government, and I would certainly recommend to the House, that we proceed with this bill to second reading, that we make any amendments that we need, that we proceed and pass this bill, and get it as far along the way as possible while the government is considering its options.

I must say to the government, while it is considering its options, it should look at England, France, and countries that have really developed social programs, when it is developing its program, it should try to come up with and bring in ideas that work.

We already know that corporate tax cuts do not necessarily produce results that the government thought it would. We know that mandatory minimums, that were tried 25 years ago by Ronald Reagan, have resulted in huge expansive private prisons in the United States, filled to the capacity with inmates. The crime rates have gone up. There are so many prisoners that the governor of California, who we just saw a couple of weeks ago at the governors conference, is letting people out. The state cannot afford to keep them anymore.

Can you not learn from the mistakes of others? Do you not know that if you develop the prison system the way California has and fill it up with people, you are going to bankrupt the country and you will not be able to keep the people in prison anyway, at the end of the day?

[Canada Labour Code, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will tell the member at the outset that we will be supporting the bill to send it to committee.

I know the member has done a lot of consulting with different groups in drawing up the bill. I know the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million workers in this country, supports the bill. I would like to know whether she has any other--

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member and the rest of the government members repeat the myth that reducing corporate taxes is going to increase jobs. They have presented no evidence or studies to show that. In fact, we have evidence that indicates exactly the opposite.

Statistics Canada and Finance Canada indicate that business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of GDP. Total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cash flow. That is from Statistics Canada. IT use by Canadian business is only half that of the United States. Despite Canadian corporate tax rates being well below those of the United States, business sector productivity growth is actually worse.

Corporate taxes are already low. American corporate tax is around 35% and the Conservatives want to go to 15%. They do not have to reduce them that drastically to have a positive effect. Where are the member's studies to show that reducing the corporate taxes to 15% is going to produce those jobs?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I draw the member's attention to page 8 of the throne speech, which speaks to the implementation of a national securities regulator. The member should know we have had a number of fights over this issue over the last number of years with Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and others, calling it a jurisdictional issue and wanting to keep the control of securities regulation under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government somehow thinks that by setting up a national securities regulator, it is going to solve the problem. My argument has been that it is not the organization so much as the people who run the organization.

If a national securities regulator keeps doing what it has been doing in the past, which is hiring people from the industry that it is supposed to be regulating, then it is basically an inactive and ineffective organization. For example, Conrad Black committed his white collar crimes in Canada, yet it was the Americans who put him in jail. What is the point of having a national organization if it is no more effective than the provincial organizations that are in place right now?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the government keeps insisting that the economy is reasonably strong, the fact is 800,000 workers are on EI and a lot of them are about to run out of benefits. There are very few jobs for them.

The government says the economy is going to grow by 2.6% in 2010. It has to do at least that since the working age population is growing by 1% per year. The budget's own unemployment projections show jobless rates increasing from where they are now at 8.2% to 8.5% and falling slowly after that.

How is the government's rosy picture of developments going to solve this problem when clearly it is not being solved by its initiatives so far?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, given that page one of the throne speech talks about the earthquake in Haiti and what the government is doing about it, and I do want to commend it for its actions on that, three or four days before the throne speech there was also I believe the biggest earthquake ever in Chile, and huge amounts of damage have occurred there as well.

The government has decided to match donations from Canadians for the earthquake in Haiti, and members of the Chilean organizations and Canadians supporting them across the country are in full agreement that the government should match funds.

We had a social on March 6 in Winnipeg which raised $10,000. We have another one coming up where 1,000 tickets have been sold for a social event this Saturday in Winnipeg. These people want to know, when is the government going to announce equal treatment, matching the funds and contributions for this earthquake in Chile?