Jim Maloway

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, March 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, legislation has been introduced in other jurisdictions, specifically British Columbia. I believe a bill was passed in British Columbia last fall and Quebec also has legislation. I would like to ask the member, what results has the industry experienced in Quebec and in B.C. where the legislation has been passed? Could the member point to any specific projects that have been let under this legislation and any positive results that have come from the initiative so far?

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what the member forgot to say in her speech is the government is shifting the tax burden from the corporations to ordinary Canadians. In fact, it was pointed out by one of my colleagues today that the corporate tax rate in the United States is around 35%. When the government is finished reducing the corporate taxes, it will be around 15% in Canada.

There is no need for it to be half the corporate tax rate of the United States when we have Nordic countries that are in the 50% range. Someone has to pay. Someone has to make up the tax deficiencies. The government is planning to rake in over $19 billion more in EI premiums than it pays out over the next few years. In that way, the citizens of Canada have to make up the shortfall in revenue that the corporations should be spending.

How is this fair to Canadian workers?

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are becoming very familiar with the Conservative strategy of shifting taxes from corporations onto the backs of ordinary Canadians. The tax shift from business to working Canadians underlines what is going on with the harmonized sales tax in Ontario and British Columbia.

In fact, budget 2010 also shows that the government intends to rely on personal income tax for more than four times as large a share of its revenues in the future as contributed by corporate income tax. Ordinary Canadians will pay four times more in personal income tax than corporations in this country.

It is also important to note that since wealthy Canadians receive a large proportion of their income in the form of stock options, equity and dividends from profits, corporate tax cuts actually increase the rich people's incomes. Furthermore, that income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of an average worker. How is this fair for working Canadians?

[Petitions, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, dozens of Canadians are calling for the adoption of Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. It would include measures on compensation for over-booked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It would deal with late and misplaced baggage and it would deal with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

This law was inspired by a European law where overbookings have dropped significantly. In fact, Air Canada is already operating under European laws for their flights to Europe. The question is: why should Air Canada customers be getting better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill would ensure that Canadians passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules have to be posted at the airport, and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process for compensation.

This bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay one cent in compensation to the passengers.

This petition calls on the government to support Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his address on this particular bill.

While I agree with a lot of what he had to say and a lot of his sentiments, I have to take exception to one or two of his points, the first one being that the bill has been slowed down in the House and can be obstructed by members of the opposition.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he admitted where the logjam was, which was when the Prime Minister called an election one year ahead of his own fixed election date. His problems with the bill really started with the procedural process. As long as the member recognizes that, we will do on our side what we can to move the bill along.

I think the Liberal Party member who spoke earlier made a very good point when he suggested that the bill should have been introduced by the government. This is not the only bill in that category. Another one is by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul dealing with trafficking of children. That too is an example of a bill that the government itself should have introduced.

I admire the members who are doing this because, having been around this business for a long time, I know how hard it is at times to take on one's own government. I admire them for making the effort to bring ideas into the House as private members' bills, which the government will not necessarily accept. It is a longer and more tortuous process but I do not think they should give up on those ideas. If there any other ideas that members have that they cannot get through their caucuses or through their government, they should do what the member did. Bring them in as private members' bills and let us debate them here. The members might be surprised to find that those bills might actually become law at the end of the day.

I want to deal with several issues. One of them is the whole business of the pill compression machine issue. Even though the member tells me it will more or less be covered by the bill, I really do not see where that is automatic.

I see there is a provision for a schedule and the schedule will deal with substances. I note that proposed section 7.1 states that, “No person shall possess, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in” these schedules.

Whether the member thinks that pill-making compression machines are going to be covered by that, I am just not sure. It seems to me that perhaps it might be dealt with by a special measure, perhaps through Health Canada regulations. I am just not sure how the member would proceed, but I think it maybe should be dealt with in addition to what the member is referring to.

When we track this through, the whole issue becomes one of money. There is a saying, follow the money. I think that is the way the government should be looking at this. When we follow the money we find out this is a problem that involves big business, that this is really a big organized business.

The member in his speech has pointed out there are big organized gangs operating this business. As a matter of fact, the Americans who spoke to me about the pill compression machines pointed out to me, as was also indicated by one of the members tonight, that this has now turned into a problem where Canada is a big exporter of these pills. The Americans say there are labs in Toronto that are producing huge quantities for the American market.

The Americans have identified the pill compression machines as the reason for this and say that in the United States they are controlling the inputs, the pill making machines, so the bad guys have simply moved their operation up to Toronto and into Canada to get around the rules that they have there on the pill compression machines. I am not sure that is entirely the full part of the problem but certainly some of them think that it is.

I want to get back to the whole area of the money and big business. Our party and our critic has pointed out this issue that the Conservative government tends to focus a lot on enforcement. We have been through this story before with the United States, with Ronald Reagan and his mandatory minimums and the “three strikes you're out”. What have we seen after 25 years? We have seen prisons filled to capacity. Many more prisons are being built by private persons. At the end of the day, however, the crime rate is even higher than it was before. So once again, let us do things that work.

Clearly, we need to chase small time drug dealers and put them in jail, but we should not be measuring our success by how many of those people we pick up, prosecute and put in jail when the problem just keeps expanding. We need to look at what else is going on.

When we look behind the veils we see that there is organized crime. It is not motorcycle guys driving around behind this. The men in suits who live in fancy houses are funding this business. It costs money to buy these ingredients, to set up these houses, to buy pill compression machines and hire the expertise to make these drugs. Based on what I have read, the average person cannot cook up this stuff on a stove. The person needs to have some sort of a background in chemistry in order to do that. Otherwise they would be blowing themselves up and taking the neighbourhood with it.

I have to admit that I never heard of these drugs until mid-age. When we grew up we never knew about drugs until we hit the end of high school into university and then they were simply the common drugs that we know, such as marijuana and so on. However, we never contemplated what we see going on here. The member in his speech talked about these pills being made with smiley faces mixed in with terrible and dangerous chemicals that are basically being pushed by essentially big business corporations onto the street to little street dealers to go out and entice kids in school to take them.

At the end of the day, the big businesses have money so they hire lawyers. The lawyers tell them how to protect themselves. The reason law enforcement is catching just the little fish is that the big guys are never at the scene of the crime. However, they are funding and controlling the operation, which is what we need to address here.

I have been highly supportive of the white collar criminal legislation. The member is suggesting that the bill should have a million dollar limit but I am saying that is way too high. It should maybe be $100,000 or only $50,000. When white collar criminals steal from people they should know they will be going to jail for a minimum sentence of a couple of years and maybe that will stop them.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the whole issue of pill compression machines. Without those machines, the drug cannot be made in the first place.

A report of the United States point to Canada as a prime source of these drugs. I know the Americans are concerned. In the United States pill compression machines are registered. When they are bought, they have to be registered. When they break down before they can be repaired, it has to be documented. There is a paper trail that follows the pill-making machine, or the compression machine. I know the United States would like us to take some action on this whole area.

What will the government do and when will it regulate pill compression machines?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member analyzed it quite well. The interesting part is this. While the Conservatives have had a lot of time to plan and take action, they have done nothing at this point. It seems to me that they are simply playing for time. There is nothing in the budget that will strengthen public pensions at all.

Where does the member think the government is headed in the whole area of pensions? Is it simply trying to avoid the issue to get itself beyond the next election? Why is it not coming to grips with a very serious problem with pensions in our country?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, once again, the government is shifting taxes from businesses to working Canadians in many ways, such as the harmonization sales tax, the HST, in Ontario and B.C.

In fact, budget 2010 shows the government intends to rely on personal income taxes for more than four times as large a share of the revenues in future as a contribution from corporate income taxes. Ordinary Canadians will pay four times more in personal income tax than corporations.

It is also important to note that since wealthy Canadians receive a large portion of their income in the form of stock options, equity or dividends from profits, corporate tax cuts actually increase their income. Furthermore, their income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of the average worker.

I would like to ask the member, how is this fair?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will go along with the same train of thought regarding the tax shift that the government is conducting from corporations to Canadians.

I want to mention the whole idea of not making the polluters pay for the environmental damage that they do. For example, the government is encouraging the oil companies to speed up exploitation of the tar sands and to export the unprocessed bitumen to the United States. The government is taking on a corporate cost and imposing it on the rest of us and future generations of Canadians. The U.S. gets our oil and we absorb the cost. This is one more tax shift. I would like to ask the member whether this is fair.

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member made a great speech. I want to make a comment to do with the Conservatives and their tax shift from corporations to Canadians. Clearly, that is what is happening in this budget. It is not something that should surprise people from our party or any party because that is their bent, to shift taxes from corporations onto the working people of the country.

The government continues to drive the country deeper into debt. We are now at $56 billion in this past budget. It gives tax cuts to profitable corporations, in fact $21 billion since 2008 and 60 billion dollars' worth by the time the cuts are fully implemented in 2014. During the same time, the government by its own reckoning will add $162.4 billion to the public debt, $60 billion more than the previous 10 years of surpluses will be erased.

While the government is giving corporations a free pass in contributing to the country's financial recovery, it is planning to take a big chunk out of the pockets of Canadian workers. Over the next four years the government will rake in $19 billion more on EI premiums than it pays out. It plans to use the payroll tax to pay down the debt that corporate taxes helped create. This represents a tax shift from the corporations to the workers. I would like to ask the member whether he thinks this is fair.