Jim Maloway

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we all know that this Conservative HST deal with B.C. is unfair. It shifts the tax burden onto families and consumers. We also know that it shifts the taxes from big corporations to everyday families. In fact, an average family of four is going to have to pay an extra $1,500 per year.

We also know that B.C. is basically being bribed by the government. It is being given $1.6 billion to sign on to this regressive deal. The real bad news today for the government is this new poll out by Ipsos Reid and Canwest News which indicates that a whopping 83% of the people are against this measure. That is without them even knowing what kind of closure motions the government is bringing down on the House.

Would the member like to comment on what is developing here?

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we know the HST will hurt residents and organizations alike in B.C. and Ontario. In fact, Adam Hayduk, the executive director of the Vancouver Thunderbirds Minor Hockey Association, was quoted as saying:

We estimate that if the HST was to be introduced, it would cost the Vancouver Thunderbirds Minor Hockey Association an additional $30,000 directly related to the purchase of ice for the youth in our community registered in our hockey program.

If we replicate across the whole province of B.C. and the province of Ontario, we are talking about a huge amount of money that is going to hurt people who do not have a lot of money in the first place.

Now I want to deal with the Liberals because they are the most confusing component of this whole debate. The Liberal finance critic has been quoted as saying, “absolutely what the doctor ordered for the economy”. He is 100% in support of the government bringing in the HST. The former premier of B.C., now a Liberal member of Parliament, is quoted as saying, “It is absolutely horrendous and it's criminal on the part of the Conservative government to be pushing this policy in a time of deep economic recession”. Two very high ranking members of the Liberal Party are totally at odds with another, when we can clearly see this will hurt people and organizations in those two provinces.

Would the member to comment on that situation?

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we know that this issue is really being pushed by businesses, so that they can reduce their taxes and make it more efficient for businesses.

However, what it does is it transitions the tax over to the individual. It is a very efficient tax for the government and businesses of course likes it. The only people who do not like it are the consumers who are going to pay more on a whole range of items starting next July 1.

Former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow on CTV News on March 7, 1996, said, “The HST is basically twofold. First of all the shift away from taxation on business and two a taxation on consumers who are already heavily taxed. I think it might have some negatives as we have seen it is having negative implications on the economy. The less money in the hands of consumers, the less they can spend and the economic system suffers as a whole. I had said before that in Manitoba, just in the throne speech a few days ago it indicated that in the case of Manitoba with a million people in the province that the HST would impose more than $400 million in new sales tax costs on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty”.

If we multiply that by the population of Ontario and B.C., we can extrapolate from that an enormous increase. I would like to ask the member to take some time and explain to the members on the government side, who are busy heckling, what the truth of this situation is.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day that a closure motion would be presented under these circumstances in the House. I recall in 1957 in the pipeline debate, the whole idea of bringing closure in the House at the end of the day meant the end of the government.

The government knew what it was going to be doing with this bill months ago. For several years it has been trying to pressure the provinces to sign on to the HST. To wait until these final days and then bring in a closure motion on top of that before we have even seen a bill and then to have the Liberals fall in line like sheep supporting this bill is a lot to take.

I noticed some of the Liberals running for cover and missing various votes. I am sure there is mass confusion in their camp right now as to what to do with this and how to come up with answers for the big tax shift that is going to occur next July.

As a matter of fact, there are some polling reports. An Ipsos Reid and Canwest News survey showed that 74% of Ontarians get this issue. They are opposed to it. The government is running scared already six months before the tax is going to come in. In B.C. 83% are against it.

We are into almost damage control now on the part of the government, with the Liberals running behind and supporting them.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member should start practising his lines for next July 1, when taxes go up all over Ontario and people start paying tax on a lot of things that they did not have to pay tax on before.

The member is trying to have it both ways. He is following his caucus line here in supporting the Conservatives and the closure motion on the actual bill itself and trying to defend it. I do not think it is going to wash, because we have done enough surveys to know that 80% to 85% of the people are against this tax.

The minister is basically trying to drive this through the House just days before the Christmas holidays and pretending that somehow the devil made him do it and that he really did not want to do this, but we have numerous quotes that we can give in the House. One of them is from the 2006 federal budget. It says, “The government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST”, yet the member is trying to pretend that this is all being driven by the provinces.

Manitoba had the good sense to say no. The throne speech given on November 30, just a few days ago, stated, “Manitoba is rejecting an invitation from the federal government to introduce a harmonized sales tax. As proposed, the HST would impose more than $400 million in new sales tax costs on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty”.

Who is the member trying to kid?

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my petition is signed by dozens of Manitobans and calls for equal employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents.

Canadians realize that adoption is important and compassionate in a just society. The current EI program provides adoptive parents with only 35 weeks of paid leave, followed by a further 15 weeks of unpaid leave. The biological mother is given both the first 35 weeks and the latter 15 weeks of paid leave.

We all know that adoptions are expensive, lengthy and stressful to the adoptive parents and their families. Recent studies have shown that the additional 15 weeks of paid leave will help these parents to support their adopted children and help them through a very difficult period.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-413, tabled by the MP for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an adoptive parent would be entitled to the same number of weeks of paid leave as the biological mother of a newborn child.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government has known about this issue for months. It basically has left this issue deliberately until the last couple of days before Christmas, when people are not paying attention. It is trying to sneak it through.

The whole process is a travesty. The government dumped this motion on us at the last minute. What we are seeing is an absolutely undemocratic approach taken by the government. Next July, Canadians in B.C. and Ontario will face huge tax increases on things they did not pay tax on before. The government is running scared on the issue and that is why it is acting in a very cowardly fashion right now.

[British Home Children, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this motion. It is a very important topic, given the number of people involved. As the previous speakers have indicated, between 1870 and 1940, more than 50 child care organizations transported 100,000 allegedly orphaned, abandoned, illegitimate and impoverished children to Canada, supposedly to provide them with better lives than they would have in England. Thousands of children six to fifteen years of age were transported without their parents' knowledge or consent to work as indentured farm labourers and domestic servants until they were 18 years of age. When they turned 16, they were supposed to get some sort of salary, but I do not know that it was very well monitored.

Currently there is an estimated four million descendants of British home children, many of whom are desperately seeking their unknown 20 million British relatives. They are not alone. Millions of Americans and Australians, possibly comprising 10% of their populations, are also unaware of the existence of family members in the United Kingdom.

There has been a lot of activity going on, thanks to the member who introduced the motion. The problem I have is that a government member has introduced the motion, and it is certainly a very good step, but I believe that the government has to offer an apology to the home children.

As I understand it so far, the citizenship and immigration minister has absolutely no plans to apologize to the home children. I do not know why that would be. He said he would support the private member's motion, recognizing 2010 as the year of the British home child, and he was prepared to issue a commemorative stamp. Given that this motion appears to have the full support of all 308 members of Parliament, it is just a logical extension from there that an apology should be in order. I would hope that the member who introduced the motion would agree with me on that, but once again, I am not sure why the government is not prepared to do that.

There was a very good letter sent out to government representatives in Nova Scotia. I want to read a couple of parts of it because it is a very well-written letter. The letter says that from 1869 to 1948, institutions in England and Scotland, such as Middlemoor Home and others sent children as young as a few months to 18 years of age to Canada. Industrial cities in the British Isles were overcrowded and Canada needed the workers, so an agreement was struck between these organizations and the British and Canadian governments to settle these children in Canada and later in Australia. I do not know whether a formal agreement was signed or what sort of agreement it was, but at least the letter does talk about an agreement.

The children were to work as farm hands or domestics. The letter goes on to say that some were lucky enough to be adopted. A prospective employer had to make an application for a child, and usually specified the sex and age required. The child was to work for room and board and clothing until the age of 16, when the child would be given a wage. There were to be yearly inspections by a representative of the sending agency and reports were supposed to be filed. The letter says that sometimes this worked, but most often it did not. Many children were not fed or clothed properly. They were beaten. They were forced to live in a barn, cellar or even with the family's dog. Some died from the abuse. The ones who survived were often emotionally scarred.

In later years, not many would talk about their experience, not even telling the truth about where they were from or how they came to Canada. Some did not even know who they were because their names were changed and they were so young when it happened, they did not remember their birth names or who their natural parents were. Yet most overcame these adversities to marry, raise children and become productive citizens. They contributed much to Canada.

Many young men enlisted in the armed forces and fought in the First World War, some repeated this unselfish act by signing up during the Second World War. The immigration scheme was well intentioned and credit must be given to those who tried to save these children for surely a large number of them might have died living in squalor as they did. But now the British and Canadian governments seem to want to sweep it all under the rug. Records are not always readily available and when they are, they can cost 60 to 75 pounds sterling.

They go on to say:

We, the second, third and forth generations are discovering our ancestors’ stories and we want to have them acknowledged. These children were real heroes even though they were not aware of it and they deserve to be recognized and rewarded for that heroism.

Other pieces of information I had in my file indicated that people were held back from gathering information when they tried to it from these organizations. Even some of the home children themselves were ignored and were denied information when they tried to look for their relatives. It seemed to be a deliberate attempt to thwart giving information on behalf of the organizations that were involved in sending the children.

This is an extremely important story. Many people are not aware of this. The member for Welland stood up earlier and asked a question of the member who introduced the motion. It is extremely important and interesting that he has a display in the Welland Museum.

It has been a long time since this started to happen and not too many people know about it. Only through activities such as the member introducing motions like this and the letters from which I just read, requesting that members from the Nova Scotia legislature pass a similar motion, are people finding out. If we make a concerted effort then I cannot see why we would not be able to put some pressure on the government to offer the apology about which our member talked.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as my Conservative friend said, that is getting short. I know he is right, because yesterday he had an unlimited speech which began to sound like an unlimited speech. At the end of the day he knew when to cut it short, and I think my time is nigh.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-464.

I must admit that this is a very touching story, one that I remember from the past. When I heard that this bill was coming up, I read the background and I wanted to be here today to support the member for Avalon in his efforts.

All too many times we have extremely good causes in the House and we get bogged down on parts of an issue and it does not allow us to get results. I am hopeful that all members in the House will support this bill. I understand Bloc members are in support of it. The NDP caucus supports this bill. I am not 100% sure about the government side. I note that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul asked a question at the beginning of the debate, and I think she is a good supporter of issues such as this one. The member for Avalon may be on the verge of getting unanimous support of the House, but I do not want to prejudge it. It certainly would be a good development if that were to happen.

In terms of the background of the bill, Bill C-464 is the result of the MP for Avalon taking the initiative in co-operation with Senator Tommy Banks. The member needed a senator to sponsor his bill in the other place. This bill is also the result of the determined efforts of Kate and David Bagby.

In 2001 Dr. Andrew Bagby was murdered in a Pennsylvania park. At that time police in the United States questioned Dr. Shirley Turner of Saint John's, Newfoundland about the murder. Soon afterward, Dr. Turner returned to Newfoundland and made known her pregnancy with the child of the late Dr. Bagby. Court proceedings followed. Dr. Turner fought to stay in Canada. Zachary was born. Grandparents Kate and David Bagby actually moved to Newfoundland to file for custody of Zachary. That was about the time that a lot of national coverage began on this story. During the court proceedings, Dr. Turner was granted bail and Zachary remained in her custody with the grandparents being given supervised visitations.

On August 18, 2003, Dr. Turner took her own life and the life of baby Zachary. While on bail, Dr. Turner jumped into the Atlantic Ocean at Conception Bay South, Newfoundland with Zachary and both died.

Since that time, Kate and David Bagby have been presenting their story and seeking reform of bail legislation. In addition, their friend and filmmaker has prepared a documentary entitled, Dear Zachary: a letter to a son about his father. This documentary has played throughout Canada and in the national media. The sponsor of the bill has indicated that he will be releasing copies of that film.

The MP for Avalon has pledged his support to the Bagbys. He has also committed to bringing about legislative reform within the Criminal Code that would hopefully strengthen bail requirements to achieve a common goal so that no one would have to witness and live through the devastation of losing loved ones through circumstances later determined as preventable. That is what this case was all about.

Dr. Peter Markesteyn is a friend of mine. I have known him for years. He conducted a review and investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of Zachary in 2003. Dr. Markesteyn made two key conclusions, that Zachary Turner's death was preventable and that Zachary was in his mother's care when he should not have been.

This is a very important piece of information to lead us to make a determination that certainly in cases like this the child should not be in the care of the individual. My colleague from Newfoundland pointed out that child and family services should have played some sort of a role in this situation.

In 2001 a criminal case unfolded in Newfoundland and Labrador, Turner-Bagby, and provided sound rationalization for Bill C-464.

There are some other points that should be mentioned. The decision to deny bail to an accused may be appropriate for the intended protection of the rights and safety of minors in the custody of the accused. We can split hairs here and get into all sorts of arguments. Each case will obviously be judged on its merits. I can see arguments being made about one case being different from another, and how some people believe they should have custody when they are accused of a murder.

In addition, judicial decision makers must be attentive for the necessity of protecting minors who remain in the custody of individuals charged with serious offences. In this case the charge was murder. I cannot think of a more serious charge or serious circumstance where action should have been taken.

Hindsight is always perfect and it is easy for us to look back on a situation and say that if only we had done this or that, then the result that happened would not have happened. Unfortunately it is very difficult for this to occur. At a certain point we have to simply draw a line, make a decision and follow it.

In addition, the protection and safety of minors remaining in the custody of individuals charged with serious crimes has to be considered during the bail hearing procedures.

The enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the detention of an accused in custody may be justified where it is necessary for the protection or safety of the accused's minor children. I am not certain at the end of the day whether that should be the end of it or whether or not it should include more than just the accused's children. There may be other people who may be at risk in this situation. That certainly is part of it.

I know that while Kate and David Bagby are supportive of the member's bill, as my colleague, the member for St. John's East pointed out, initially they did want more restrictive bail measures, but at the end of the day, they are happy with what is in this bill. Presumably when the bill gets to committee, we will hear from the Bagbys and we will get a better bearing of where we are.

I understand my time might be getting short, but I am not sure how short. Madam Speaker is indicating 25 seconds.