Jim Maloway

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in her presentation, the member for Winnipeg South Centre talked about how she arrived home and found two to four ten percenters in her mailbox. I have had the same experience. I have been getting these ten percenters since I was elected.

The fact is the member for Winnipeg South Centre is still an elected member of the House. She has been complaining about these ten percenters over the last two elections and she keeps winning. Clearly, whatever the Conservatives are doing is not working too well.

I do not think that banning the ten percenters sent to other member's ridings outright is the answer. The Liberals should think about this in terms of amending their motion. In Manitoba, we had a set of rules that we had to follow for our provincial mailings. We were not allowed to attack other parties. Perhaps we should look at that as a solution in this case.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the Speaker would draw the member's attention to the actual motion for debate here and deal with the content of this motion.

[Income Tax Act, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her bill, Bill C-470. She has described it as disclosure requirements for the five highest employees with a threshold of $250,000. She mentioned that the Province of Ontario requires disclosure of salaries over $100,000 for the top earners.

I would point out that in Manitoba for the last 15 or 20 years we have something called the public sector compensation act that lists all employees working for the government whose salaries exceed $50,000.

Does the member have any comments on whether this could be added into the bill at committee so that we would have more than just the top five salaries, that we would have a list of everyone earning beyond a threshold of $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000?

[Agriculture, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Motion No. 460, sponsored by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I want to take a moment to read the motion. It says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We have heard from several speakers in the House, including the member for Malpeque, the member for Drummond and the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. They have all made some very important points about this motion. My colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, has pointed out that there is nothing in the wording that says we have to meet the Canadian standards.

I know the member for Drummond has pointed out that, while it is not in the wording, it is on the website. However, I appreciate that the member has the correct intention here. It is a lot of work. Anybody who has ever brought a private bill or motion before the House knows it is not simple. There are a lot of hoops to go through. There is a lot of consulting that has to be done. I know the member has done a lot of work.

However, there should be a better process around here. If the member was concerned about getting unanimous consent on his motion, all he would have had to do is check with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, our party's critic for agriculture, and that would have been pointed out to him immediately. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the wording of the motion except for the fact that nothing in the wording says that we have to meet Canadian standards.

Had he done that before introducing the motion, our member would have agreed to that and the member for Drummond might be a happier man today as well. That is just a bit of advice. Hindsight is terrific. One looks in the rear-view mirror.

I also know the government has power. If this is such an important issue, why is the government not doing it? Why is it leaving it to a member in the House to bring in the motion? Clearly, it is not prepared to act. The member for Malpeque asked a question of the member—

[Agriculture, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for bringing forward Motion No. 460. I know he has consulted widely on this, but can he tell us whether the Dairy Farmers of Canada support this motion at this time?

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listen to the member every time he makes a speech in the House.

I recognize that the government claims that it has, in its opinion anyway, good economic statistics, but at the end of the day, we have to recognize that the government is basically making a virtue out of necessity. The reality is that had there been a majority Conservative government in 2006 or 2008, the government would have immediately set on a path of deregulation, following the United States. Had that happened in 2006, the Canadian economy and the Canadian banking system would have been in the same disaster that befell the United States.

In actual fact, the government should be thanking its lucky stars that the previous government had resisted deregulation. We in the NDP had certainly fought deregulation all along. In fact, it was us, collectively, who provided the rules and regulations that kept the banking industry and the investment sector strong. The Conservatives inherited a good, strong situation and they were about to deregulate and cause a disaster, but they were saved from themselves.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the business of the government reducing corporate taxes and thinking that somehow that would be the solution.

The government is shifting the taxation burden from corporations to ordinary Canadians. In fact, ordinary Canadians are going to be paying four times more in personal income tax than corporation taxes. I remember maybe 20 years ago when those figures were roughly equal.

How can this move by the government be fair to working Canadians?

[Petitions, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by dozens of Canadian citizens. The petition calls upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. It includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It deals with late and misplaced baggage. It deals with all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

The bill is inspired by European law, where overbooking has dropped significantly in the last five years. Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights to Europe, so why should Air Canada passengers be treated better in Europe than in Canada?

The bill ensures that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted at the airport, and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay any compensation at all.

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

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, experts say that corporate tax reductions have not had the desired effect the government thinks they should have. For example, Statistics Canada indicates that business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of GDP and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cashflow. This is the opposite of what the government is trying to achieve.

IT use by Canadian business is only half of that of the United States. That comment is attributed to Kevin Lynch, former clerk of the Privy Council. In 2007, Canadian business spending on R and D, about 1% of GDP, ranked 14th in the OECD, well below the average 1.6% and only one-third of that of Sweden, Finland and Korea. In addition, productivity growth was actually worse in the last decade.

There is a lot of evidence out there that the government's agenda of reducing corporate taxes is not having the desired effect. Why do the Conservatives insist upon doing things that do not work?

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government maintains that the economy is strong, but try telling that to the 800,000 workers who are on EI and are about to run out of benefits. There are no jobs for those people to go to.

The government says the economy is going to grow by 2.6% this year. It has to do at least that because the working age population is growing by over 1% a year. So in fact, the budget's own unemployment projections show the jobless rates are actually going to increase this year from 8.2% to 8.5%. The government's solution is further tax cuts. The government thinks that somehow is going to grow the economy and create jobs.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. How effective does he think the tax cuts are going to be?