Jim Maloway

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was rather amused yesterday when, after the throne speech, the Conservative members began to talk about how they were going to approach innovation. They talked about having more government online programs, for example.

While the government has been in power now for four years, I do not think I have heard a single announcement about any government online program. As a matter of fact, one has to look back to the Liberal government of Paul Martin. When Reg Alcock was a member of Parliament, he was a big champion and driver of government online programs.

How the Conservatives expect this particular innovation to create jobs is beyond me. In fact, a government online program should actually reduce jobs.

It is still a good idea to have government online programs, and not only to provide information but also for transactions so that people in disadvantaged and rural areas can get the same services as people in a city by doing a transaction on a computer, as opposed to taking a bus, driving into a city, and standing in line at a government office to fill out a student aid application, for example.

I would like to see the government start moving ahead in this area rather than dragging its feet, which it has been doing for the last four years.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, yesterday we listened to a very long speech, 23 pages in fact, very long on rhetoric and short on substance.

The opposition is certainly not always all negative on this particular Speech from the Throne. We would be remiss if we did not recognize a number of good elements in the speech yesterday. For example, the speech promised: to investigate the murders of 500 aboriginal women; to recognize the concern about workers affected by corporate bankruptcy, and we support action on this particular issue; to recognize the help for military families; to endorse the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous people; to support President Obama's efforts on nuclear non-proliferation; and also a commitment to boost support for apprenticeships and skills training.

I make these comments to show that we in the opposition do appreciate at least some of the elements in the Speech from the Throne yesterday.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member provided some startling statistics when he said that farm debt has increased by $9 billion since the government has been elected and that Canada is losing over 5,000 farmers per year.

In fact, a parliamentary group last week attended a meeting in Washington on congressional visitation programs. I know the member himself has been in Washington on these programs in the past and has certainly provided valuable contributions.

One of the issues being dealt with at that meeting was country of origin labelling, which has been an issue for a number of years and still is. I would like the member to make some comments as to whether he thinks that particular program is leading to a loss of farmers within this country.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the member back to last fall to a speech he made regarding infrastructure projects in which he indicated that they were coming in well under budget by significant amounts, primarily due to the tough economic climate.

Could the member tell us whether this trend is continuing and could he give us some examples? By what percentages are these projects coming in under budget? That is certainly good news.

[December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-343.

This is an important bill, one that I think will get a lot of support in the House. I am rather disappointed to hear the Conservatives' opinion about it. They do not feel they will be able to support the bill. They have suggested they will come up with their own legislation to take its place. I guess the government will sell it as part of its crime agenda.

This is solidly based legislation and the NDP supports it.

Bill C-343 would extend workplace benefits to victims of crime and their families. The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons: first, the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of or as a direct result of a criminal offence; second, the disappearance of a minor child; third, the suicide of a spouse, common law partner or child; and fourth, the death of a spouse, common law partner or child during the commission or as a direct result of a criminal offence.

All these occasions would be extremely stressful for families. It is important that they be allowed to take time off work because of the enormous stress associated with any one of these developments. The parties would need counselling. I would think it would be very hard for people to concentrate on what they were doing. We need to deal with these major issues.

Since 1969, the province of Manitoba has had a fund called the criminal injuries compensation fund. Some other provinces might have a similar thing. The fund provides benefits to people who have been hurt as a result of criminal acts. I would be surprised if Manitoba was the only province with a criminal injuries compensation fund. It is one province of which I am aware.

The bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

I want to point out that the Conservative government talks a lot about crime. We spent an entire week in this place on crime bills. It was almost like a factory. There was a new bill every day of the week. I rather enjoyed the process, but it was difficult to keep up with the bills.

On CTV, I would hear that the government had announced another crime bill. It had two days of free coverage without us even seeing what the bill was about and then doing the necessary research to respond in short order. Then the very next day, there would be another one. It was as if it would never end. I am sure the government has many more such crime bills planned for the upcoming year.

The Conservatives always talk about being tough on crime. The NDP wants to be smart on crime not just up on crime. The fact is the Conservatives talk a great line about the victims of crime, but where are they when it comes time to do something about the victims? They are big on talk, but they are not so big on action.

Bill C-343, proposed by the member, does that. The bill does what the government talks about but does not actually do anything about.

I am really surprised that the government would take this very negative position on this bill and on many other good ideas that members in the opposition come forward with. It always has to find a reason why it is a bad idea and why it cannot support it.

For example, tonight the government talked about how it has costed the bill out already and that the effects of the bill are going to cost the system $340 million to $410 million. How in the world did the government come up with figures like that? Does it know what the crime rate will be? Supposedly, with all its great initiatives in its crime bills, the crime rate will come down. Therefore, there will not be the amount of crime that it is talking about.

Therefore, how would it be able to project figures--

[December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on Bill C-343. I think it is an excellent bill and our caucus will be supporting it.

I find it rather interesting that the government would be trying to kill the bill through the route of the royal recommendation challenge. The government pretends to be supportive of the victims, but that is what the bill is all about. The bill is all about supporting victims and here we have a government at the first opportunity to actually do something for victims trying to kill the bill.

The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, one of which would be the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as a direct result of a criminal offence. There are three other instances where they would qualify for this.

The government has costed it already. It says that it is going to cost $340 million to $410 million. I would like to know how it comes up with figures like that--

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's answer to the government member's insightful wedge type question that we have heard from other government members as well, trying to incite people in the House.

My colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, made an observation earlier today that may provide an ultimate solution here. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Holland have a very transparent system with regard to detainees. In fact, in Holland, the parliament has to be informed whenever a detainee is transferred. When the government finally extracts itself from the current mess it is in, maybe it should look to best practices elsewhere to develop a better system.

As far as the Liberals are concerned, it is nice to see, since they got us into this mess in 2003 without a debate in the House, they at least are willing to have the public inquiry to include their time in office. However, I am particularly upset with the government. When I asked a question about why the government leaked Mr. Colvin's memos to the media and why it was obstructing the parliamentary committee's request for documents, Conservatives deliberately hid from that question. The Conservatives will not answer the question. They go around and answer any other type of question they can, but not that one. Could the member give me some observations as to why she thinks they are doing that?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous that duly elected members of Parliament on the committee cannot get access to these documents when reporters are getting access to them. It is unbelievable that would happen in a democracy such as this.

As the member said, there was no credible case until yesterday. I think the government was simply hoping and praying that the days would go by and it would get through Christmas without having yesterday's development. The Conservatives have been trying to hold on. They are involving themselves in crisis control. They are trying to hold on for two more days so they can get through the Christmas period and into January.

Earlier I asked a government member why members of Parliament were being denied documents and why the government leaked Colvin's memos to the media and why the government continued to obstruct the committee's request for documents. The member answered everything but; it was basically a filibuster to the question. He nibbled around the edges but never dealt with any part of those two questions that I asked him.

Would the member like to suggest why that would be?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, this is a very secretive and defensive government. I asked a government member an hour ago why the government leaked Mr. Colvin's memos to the media and why it was obstructing the parliamentary committee's request for documents. There has been absolutely no answer to those direct questions.

I asked if the government had nothing to hide, why it obstructed the Military Police Complaints Commission. He said that the government was making documents available to the Military Police Complaints Commission, which I am not sure is the case. I would ask the member, would he like to elaborate a bit on that?

Once again, we have an obstructionist, defensive government that, when asked a pointed and direct question, skates around the issue, filibusters the question and does not answer it.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing today with a Liberal opposition motion regarding Afghan detainees. We know the government has been hiding from this situation for the last four years. In fact, the Liberals, to give them credit, have agreed that the public inquiry that should be called should include their time in office as well. They have been fairly open about that.

The question I have for the government member is, why did the government leak Mr. Colvin's memos to the media and why is it obstructing the parliamentary committee's request for documents? If the government has nothing to hide, then why did it obstruct the Military Police Complaints Commission and why will it not get a public inquiry under way right away?