Jim Maloway

[Airline Industry, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the United States transportation department has imposed its first penalties in North America against Continental Airlines for tarmac delays, and has collected $175,000 from three airlines for leaving 47 passengers stranded for six long hours on a plane in Rochester. This sends a signal to the rest of the United States airline industry that it must respect the rights of air travellers.

Is Air Canada going to stop flying to the U.S. because of these tough new tarmac penalties? When will the government stand up for Canadian air passengers and vote for the air passengers' bill of rights?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that if Quebeckers choose to take advantage of what is a voluntary program, they will pay the EI premiums at the same rate as employees in Quebec where the rates have already been adjusted downward to take into account the existence of provincial maternity and parental benefit plans which have been there for a while.

In addition, self-employed Quebeckers would pay the same premium rate as Quebec paid workers, which is 1.36% in 2010 which is reduced to account for the existence of the QPIP.

Does the member have any comments about that piece of information?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the Bloc's research department should take a second look at this issue. It is supposed to have a very good research department, but I am not so sure it is right on this one.

For example, in this particular bill, this is optional. No one has to buy into this program. If individuals can find benefits that are cheaper in the private sector and insurance market, they are free to do so or they are free to do nothing. Second, the member said that the government would be using the EI surplus to pay the deficit. In fact, this program is not going to produce any surplus at all. There will be a deficit unless it is made mandatory.

I think the Liberal member had it tied down pretty good the other day. She suggested that she could not see how it could possibly make money because it would be selection against the EI system when it is made voluntary. It would have to be mandatory to break even. That is another issue. I would ask the Bloc member to comment on those items. I just think it has it wrong this time.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have letters here from some of the same people who were opposed to the air passenger bill of rights. The Canadian Airports Council says:

The Canada Labour Code has an emergency services provision designed to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public”. It kicks in when there is a clear and present danger to the public. However, it does NOT cover many other essential services provided by federally regulated industries that the Canadian public view as critical to their well-being. For example, it could not be used to deal with a strike or lock-out of the following work groups who are essential to keeping an airport open and operational:

The letter spells out:

Workers who provide snow removal services at many airports during the winter

A contractor’s employees who providing de-icing services

Commissionaires, or other groups who provide important security-related duties

Non-safety/security labour groups, such as baggage handlers

It goes on to say that--

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the process the government is following regarding this HST issue is a travesty on Canadians. The government has had weeks to bring in the motion in a normal fashion, but it has simply dumped Motion No. 8 on us essentially at the last minute, in the last week before the recess.

Does the member not find it suspicious that the government waited until the last week before the Christmas break to introduce a time allocation motion before we had even seen the bill? Is that not part of a plan on the part of the government to ram this through in the middle of the night, in the last minutes before Parliament recesses for Christmas?

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The member would be making a very informative and entertaining speech if in fact there were a bill before the House. The member has not said one word relevant to Motion No. 8 that is before the House which deals with the whole closure operation and the specifications that we will have one day to debate this and we will see a bill sometime in the future.

Basically, he is supposed to be debating Motion No. 8, which outlines the process that we are following, not the possible bill that may show up in a couple of days.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for quite a long time now and we are dealing with Government Business Motion No. 8. Nothing he has said from word one relates to Motion No. 8 in the least.

I would ask you to call him to order and have him deal with Motion No. 8. If he wants we can take time to enumerate exactly what is in that motion, but he is talking about a bill that we have not even seen yet.

This is a whole closure procedure that the government is involved in. The Conservatives could have brought this motion in two or three weeks ago and now they are crying that they have no time because we are scheduled to get out of here next Friday. They are bringing in closure. There is no bill here and with his unlimited time he is not even addressing the motion in front of us.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European Union law. Air Canada already operates under the European laws for its flights to Europe. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill would ensure that passengers would be kept informed of flight changes, whether there were delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airports and airlines would inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would also require all-inclusive pricing by airline companies to be in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to deal with these no-fly lists, because as the member is aware, there is even a member of our caucus having trouble with the no-fly list here in Canada. Once people get on a no-fly list, good luck to them in trying to get themselves taken off it.

What steps has the government taken to help Mr. Arar get his name taken off the no-fly lists, and what efforts has it made to intervene with the United States? Evidently, regardless of what information the Canadian government wants to present to the United States, they say, “Our minds are made up. It doesn't matter what you tell us; we still think he's a bad guy”.

What, if anything, has the government done with regard to these three individuals in terms of the no-fly lists?

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member that the Liberals were in power when we got into this mess in the first place. So I do accept that from him. I had just heard one of the Liberal members certainly take some responsibility. However, I agree with him that there was probably more than one member up there.

I know the government has to stay away from the litigation side of the equation, but there are some things the government should be doing. I just want to look in on recommendation three, where it talks about the official apology and whether or not that could be done and whether that would in any way prejudice the legal side of it. Certainly the committee did want to correct the record with respect to inaccurate, inflammatory and unjustified allegations and information shared with foreign agencies about these men. Has the government taken any steps to try to correct these records and at least solve that part of the problem?

There are a number of other issues that are pointed out here where the government should be taking steps proactively to lessen the trauma that these three individuals are suffering.

Would the member tell us why he has not issued or will not issue an apology; and secondly, whether he has, or if he has not, why he has not, dealt with clearing up the records with the other agencies in the other countries?