Jim Maloway

[November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question we want answered most is why we did not start off on a national basis inoculating or vaccinating the most-at-risk people first.

The government pretended to have a handle on this whole issue. It kept saying it was going to start the vaccination program on November 1 and it had 50 million doses. Then all of a sudden, very quickly, we see the government accelerated the program. It started a week ahead.

After only five days of pandemonium across the country, it has decided it does not have any more vaccine. It has to wait.

In terms of the most at risk, I understand, for example, that in Manitoba tomorrow the military personnel are being vaccinated. I do not know that they are in the most-at-risk category.

I would just ask the government to pull back a little bit here and quit being so defensive, and maybe admit that it does have a problem. I do not think the Liberals are imagining things here. I think they have been laying out some pretty good facts here, through speaker after speaker.

The government is just basically reading its notes from the Prime Minister's Office, just pretending that there is no problem here. Just wake up—

[November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a very impressive strategy and gave us a history lesson as to how the situation has developed. However, the fact is, and my colleague, our health critic, mentioned this as well in her speech, we are not trying to blame people here. However, the government, if it has made a mistake, should simply admit that it has made one and promise to do better.

The public was of the understanding that there were 50 million doses. Liberal members have indicated when the orders were made and indicated when the process started.

We should have been screening the most at-risk people from the very beginning. Instead, the government simply started to roll out the program and vaccinated whomever showed up in the lineups. Then after only one week, it announced that it did not have enough to continue the next day. Alberta has closed its clinics for a week. That is not very good long-range planning.

There is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake has been made. If the government has made a mistake, just say that it has and that it will improve.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that there are certain provinces, I believe Quebec is one and Manitoba is another, that have class action legislation. Ontario might have it as well.

I wonder if the member could confirm that class action provisions might be applicable as far as the bill is concerned. It seems to me that if we are dealing on an individual basis, it is a much more positive approach if we could have the bill affected by class action lawsuits, whereby people could take action on the part of a whole group of people who were being victimized by certain types of spam activity.

I wonder if the member would comment on that and whether he has any ideas for improvements.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague today.

I am very concerned about the bill with regard to the cost and confusion the legislation might have for small businesses in the country. Oftentimes the government introduces legislation. Then, after it is introduced, it is quite a complicated process and expense communicating with small businesses and getting them up to speed on what the requirements are.

I can think of many initiatives in that area over the last several years. I just wonder if the member has any thoughts about how we should be proceeding with regard to that.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act.

As members of the House know, the bill was introduced on June 2 by the Minister of Public Safety. The bill would create a cause of action that would allow victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities for loss or damage suffered as a result of acts or omissions punishable under part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which is the part of the code that deals with terrorism offences that have been committed by individuals, organizations or entities.

The bill would also allow victims of terrorism to sue foreign states that have supported terrorists who have committed such acts in certain circumstances. The victim's loss or damage can have occurred inside or outside Canada but must have occurred on or after January 1, 1985. If the loss or damage occurred outside Canada, there must be a real and substantial connection to this country.

Bill C-35 would also amend the State Immunity Act to create a new exception to state immunity, the general rule that prevents states from being sued in Canada's domestic courts.

However, the new exception serves to remove state immunity only when the state in question has been placed on a list established by cabinet on the basis that there is reasonable grounds to believe that it has supported or currently supports terrorism.

As we heard this morning through most of the debate, a lot of the dissension surrounds the whole question of whether or not it is proper to have this list included.

We know, through experience, that the Americans have had similar legislation in effect for at least 10 years. Critics of that legislation point to the fact that it is the list that causes the problems and makes the bill difficult to deal with.

On the basis of the conversations I have heard this morning, the excellent comments from at least two and maybe more Liberal speakers, it seems to me that at the end of the day there could develop a consensus on this bill surrounding this particular list. It seems to me that if we were to remove the list, then it would remove the impediments to supporting the bill at committee stage.

Another important component that we would look at adding at committee stage is the issue of torture.

The new exemption serves to remove cabinet immunity only when the state in question has been placed on the list established by cabinet and there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the state has supported or currently supports terrorism.

Bill C-35 is similar to a number of private member bills and Senate public bills that have been introduced in Parliament since 2005. The primary difference between the previous bills and Bill C-35 is that the other bills sought to include the cause of action in the Criminal Code, whereas Bill C-35 would create a free-standing civil cause of action.

In terms of the background and context of the bill, one of the most significant features of Bill C-35 is the fact that it would give victims of terrorist acts the ability to sue in Canada's domestic courts foreign states that support terrorism. Most states do not recognize sponsoring or supporting terrorism as the exception to the general state immunity principle. Customary international law historically gave states, their agents and instrumentalities complete immunity from being sued in the domestic courts of other states. This principle arose out of another international law, the sovereign equality of states.

I do know that we are getting a little bit short on time today and that I will have more time to continue with the debate on this bill when we resume, but I do want to specifically deal with the whole issue of the bill as it exists in the United States.

Once again, I really feel that the government should be looking at best practices. It should go anywhere in the world to find examples of where best practices exist. Where there is a piece of legislation that has shown to be effective and we can isolate and determine the reasons for it being effective, then we should simply use that case to improve our own.

As I indicated, in the United States, similar legislation has been in place for more than a decade and only listed countries can be sued, which is what this bill contemplates, with currently listed countries being Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally listed but have since been delisted.

The common problem identified by the Congressional Research Service, and this can be documented, has been the refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. Well, there is no surprise there. As such, the defendants do not appear and default judgments are rendered, which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay.

So there is feel-good legislation where people in good faith launch lawsuits thinking they will get results but only get a default judgment against the rogue state that is on the list which then ignores the judgment or refuses to pay. They go on to say that even if people do get the judgment and the country refuses to pay, they cannot recover money anyway because there are very limited assets of the listed countries being held in the United States, and Canada would have far less percentage of assets to be looked at. Regardless of the limitation of assets—

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, to continue on with this line of questioning, we ended by saying that it looks as though the best we could get is default judgments in the United States which the debtor countries ignore and refuse to pay, so where does that leave the victim? The next problem is recovery. They say that recovery is the problem given the limited assets of listed countries being held in the U.S. and the executive branch's resistance to allow frozen assets to be used for that purpose. Even if we are trying to hunt down the assets, we are not going to be getting the help of the government in this regard. The executive would resist such efforts over concerns about retaliatory measures, losing leverage over the countries concerned and potentially violating international law on state immunity. They go on to talk about the Algiers court as an example.

This is very complicated. In addition, countries such as Cuba and Iran have simply retaliated by bringing in their own equivalent measures introduced in their own countries.

I would ask the member if he would like to comment further on that aspect.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it seems that in the United States it has been a big problem. Once again I have suggested the government look at experiences that actually work or instances where certain types of legislation can be proven to work. Once again the government has embarked on legislation here where we have evidence that it has not worked that well in the United States.

In the United States' experience, similar legislation has been in place for a decade. Only listed countries can be sued, which currently are Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally on the list but they were taken off.

The common problem being found has been a refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. As such, the defendants do not appear and default judgments are rendered which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay. They go through this process and at the end of the day, they come out empty-handed. That is not what we want to do here.

We want to get legislation that works in the first place. My colleague and a member of the Liberal caucus got to the point this morning when they said that we do not need a list of countries. As a matter of fact, a list is the wrong way to go. An injustice is an injustice no matter what country perpetrates it and people should have the right to sue on the basis of the injustice, regardless of the country.

I would ask the member to elaborate a little more on that experience in the United States.

[Petitions, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls for the adoption of Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. The bill requires all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

The legislation is inspired by the European Union law that has been in place for four years, and since Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights in Europe, why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada.

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

This bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they would not need to pay $1 in compensation to passengers.

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

[Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this bill adopts a U.S. style approach to prisons that is very expensive and ineffective. We saw what happened in California in the 1980s with the big expansion there of private prisons. I would like to ask the member, does he see in any way, shape or form shades of that American system reflected in this bill? Perhaps he could reflect on the government's intentions.

[Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that the Conservatives view as privileges are going to be removed from prisoners, such as mental health treatment, literacy programs and work programs. I would like to ask the member, how does the removal of these programs help rehabilitate criminals and further reduce any crime?