Jim Maloway

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

My colleague says that we will talk. I feel that somehow a tax credit situation is a different proposition than selling it to the highest bidder. However, like my colleague said, we will talk about this.

I went to considerable effort to dig up a lot of material on this subject and even went into the history of medals. I have so many pages here I really do not know where to start. I thought I might have 10 minutes to do this subject justice but I now know that I do not have a full 10 minutes.

Before I start explaining the history of the medals, I do want to point out that one of my sons, Kevin, is in the Canadian reserves. He is in the 735 Communication Regiment in the Minto Armoury in Winnipeg. As he is only 23 years old, he has not won any medals yet, but he has a very strong interest in this subject. The military certainly hands out a lot of certificates for courses and he has been taking a lot of courses and has brought home a lot of certificates.

If I do have time, and I see that you are nodding, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have a lot of time.

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-473.

I listened with great interest to all the contributions of the speakers. I thought the Bloc member for Berthier—Maskinongé summed up the bill quite well. He and I were on a U.S.-Canada parliamentary trip to Washington a couple of weeks ago and had occasion to meet with many congress people and senators where we managed to get Canada's message across that we needed changes in some areas.

Tonight I follow my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who is very passionate about this subject. It is almost impossible to upstage him because he knows the subject so well. I do not think there is any better expert in the House on this whole area than the member. I sure hope he stays here. I read a story the other day that he might entertain the idea of running for mayor in a couple of years,. That would be a big loss and a big disappointment to members on all sides of the House because he adds so much to this chamber.

He did have some serious observations about this particular bill. He has his own bill, Bill C-208, which if he and the member opposite could somehow get together at committee on this issue, we could get the best of two bills, almost a perfect composition. There is a lot of room for compromise on both sides.

I do like the member's suggestion that these medals should not be viewed as currency. If the heirs of the person who earned the medal no longer require the medal, then it should really go to a Canadian museum. The member pointed out to me that the Order of Canada cannot be sold.

There has been some good solid thinking about this. I appreciate the member dealing with the bill in view of the property rights issue. An important part of the bill would make certain that these medals do not leave the country. The worry that we have is that if the medals are sold on eBay and become a commercial asset, that would in some ways defeat the purpose of the bill.

I personally feel that the special tax incentive in the bill has some merit, although I know my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore does not agree with that element of it either.

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, I think the NDP likes Bill C-473. We will hear from the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who has a lot of knowledge about this whole area.

In general, we feel that medals should not be a currency. They should end up in museums and not be handled as commercial transactions.

Does the member have the support of the Canadian legion for the bill?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that our tourism industry in this country is suffering because of this government. In fact, American tourists are not coming up here in the numbers that they were before the passport regulations came into effect.

The government had lots of warning, had an opportunity to deal with the issue, and when the provinces tried to get the government to reduce the cost of passports, or at least come in with a passport light, the government refused, so provinces like Manitoba had to come up with their own enhanced driver's licence, and basically duplicate the functions of the Passport Office, something they should not have had to do.

The question is, will the government make a move to reduce the cost of passports, perhaps have a two for one or a half price passport for a number of months to increase tourism?

When I read in page 14 of the Speech from the Throne that the Conservatives plan to introduce the biometric passport, I have my doubts that they will ever get around to doing that because in order to do that, they have to negotiate the form of that passport with all other countries through a passport organization. Cards have to be able to be read in the countries that--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I want to draw his attention to page 8 of the throne speech and the issue of the national securities regulator. As I see it, it is basically a feel-good exercise on the part of the government. It is planning to spend $160 million creating a bigger bureaucracy and is probably not going to change the people running the organization.

The organizations are not the problem; it is the people running them that are the problem, because they are being hired from the very companies they are supposed to be regulating. That is the real problem. That is why Conrad Black was not put in jail in Canada. He was put in jail in the United States, even though he committed his crimes in Canada. The Canadians could not do it.

The government members think that somehow if they can set up a national securities regulator, it is going to solve all of their problems. The government is not going to be able to do that unless it staffs the organization with people who are not coming from the companies they are currently regulating, that is, staffing it with people who are going to be more investigative in nature and have a better enforcement approach.

I am not sure what the hon. member and the Liberal Party's position is on this particular issue right now, but I want to make the point that just changing the structure is not going to amount to a more effective organization, unless one changes the people running the organization.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the previous speech of the member for Nanaimo—Alberni, so it will probably be a statement more than a question because he cannot answer it.

He made a very nice presentation about what the government had actually done and that it had done a great job dealing with the situation in Haiti. However, he neglected to mention what the government would do as far as Chile was concerned. We know the government matched the funds of Canadian contributions. So far the government has been hanging back on this. It has not committed to treating the Chilean earthquake in the same way as it is treating the situation in Haiti.

I think the current member can answer this question. It deals with the issue in the throne speech, on page 8, the national securities regulator.

It is not the structure we are dealing with here. It is the people who are running the structure that is important. The provinces of Quebec and Alberta are opposed to this. The fact is if we have a national regulator and we have the same people running it who are running the system right now, we are not going to get any better results. We cannot be staffing the organization with people who are hired from the companies that they are supposed to be regulating. That is really the fundamental problem.

Whatever structure we have should be beefed up with aggressive—

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, the throne speech was on March 3, but four days before that, on February 27, there was an 8.8 magnitude earthquake in southern Chile. There was tsunami coastal flooding. It affected two million people and caused eight hundred deaths. In fact, 138 Canadians are still missing.

Last Saturday a social was held in Winnipeg, which raised $10,000. I am sure there will be social events across the country to raise money. The people at that social wanted to know whether the Canadian government would match dollar for dollar the personal donations of Canadians for the victims of the Chilean earthquake as it did in the Haitian catastrophe.

Will the member approach her leader, the Prime Minister, and ask him to give the same treatment to the victims of Chile as the government did for Haiti?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the member to page 14 of the throne speech where it says that the government is planning to introduce a new biometric passport that will significantly improve security. I would like to know from the government, and I am sure she would too, what the timeline is for that biometric passport.

Before the government is able to do something like this, it will need to negotiate on a world-wide basis with the organization that deals with and approves the form of passports. If it does not, we will have a biometric passport that will not be able to be read by any country that our citizens visit. I think the government is talking about the biometric being a fingerprint, an iris scan or face recognition. I am really not sure just where it is headed with this.

I would ask the member for her comments, especially in light of the fact that some provinces, like Manitoba, have gone ahead with enhanced driver's licences and now—

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on February 27, 2010, four days before the throne speech on March 3, there was an 8.8 magnitude earthquake in southern Chile. There was tsunami coastal flooding. Two million people were affected by it and 800 people died. There are 138 Canadians, I believe, still missing as a result of the earthquake.

People who are supporting the local Chilean communities in Canada, for example in Winnipeg $10,000 was raised last Saturday night, are asking the Canadian government to match dollar for dollar the personal donations of Canadians for the victims of the Chilean earthquake as was done for Haiti.

We applaud the government's establishing the pattern. I would like to ask the member, would he and the Liberal Party join the call for matching funds for the Chilean earthquake?

[Petitions, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my petition has dozens of signatures calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights. In fact, Bill C-310 would provide compensation to airline passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would include measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The bill would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would deal with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

It is inspired by the European Union law where overbookings have dropped significantly in Europe in the last five years. Air Canada is already operating under these European laws for its flights to Europe, so the question is why should Air Canada customers receive better treatment in Europe than they do in Canada?

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

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