Jim Maloway

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speakers from the Liberal Party on this issue for the last couple of days, and we certainly have a variety of views. The member for Mississauga South gave a very reasoned argument yesterday about why members should oppose this agreement but he seems to have been counteracted by members of his party who are in favour of it.

I wonder how far the Liberal members would want to go. If they are prepared to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, would they sign a free trade agreement with North Korea? At what point do we have to ask for an independent analysis and study, and what is the harm of that?

Why not take a little longer, do a study on human rights, rather than rushing forward and joining government members who seem to be determined to sign a free trade agreement at all costs, as quickly as possible. The United States Congress has held back. The Obama administration has held back on endorsing this agreement, as has the British government. Both of these countries are our allies in the world, in Afghanistan and other places. The British government has pulled back on its military aid to the country because of human rights abuses. Certainly the killings are not decreasing, as the Conservatives are suggesting, so why--

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member and the government pretend to be tough on crime. However, the member should know that 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number of murders was up by 18% over the previous year. So far this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered up to September. In fact, the Obama administration in the United States has put a halt on negotiating a free trade deal with Colombia. The British, our other allies, have cut military aid to the country.

Why would the member want to support rewarding a country that has a terrible human rights record? Why do we not sit back, take a look and investigate this issue further before we go ahead holus-bolus and try to sign an agreement with Colombia at this time?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Elmwood—Transcona, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

[June 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question.

The President of the Treasury Board and member for Provencher have elevated the replacement of the Letellier Bridge in his riding over the higher priority Disraeli Bridge rehabilitation in Winnipeg. Over 6,500 people have signed petitions protesting the 16-month closure of this major Winnipeg artery, carrying over 40,000 cars per day and affecting over 100,000 people in the northeast part of the city.

There will be 40,000 cars rushing through the Elmwood side streets to get to single-lane bridges like Redwood or the Louise Bridge from Transcona or the Watts Street-Archibald route to St. Boniface. Drivers who use any of these routes, not just the Disraeli, should be prepared for gridlock every day and area residents should be prepared for cars speeding down their back lanes—

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 19th, 2009]

Has the government issued any press releases, statements or speeches, with regards to the recent review, chaired by Mount Allison University President, Robert Campbell, prepared for the government, suggesting that Canada Post should drop door-to-door mail delivery and switch to community mailboxes and, if so, where can they be accessed?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in Sri Lanka, over 250,000 internally displaced persons are still being kept in government-run camps.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to use every diplomatic means at its disposal to restore the freedom of movement for the UN and international aid organizations throughout the whole of Sri Lanka and begin the process of working toward a lasting peace and reconciliation between the government and the Tamil Tigers that will see full respect of the human rights of all Sri Lankans.

The Sri Lankan government must move faster to allow freedom of movement for the internally displaced persons in camps and prevent them from becoming internment facilities. The United Nations is now more concerned over the issue of freedom of movement than living conditions in the camps, which seem to be improving every day. It is time for Parliament to insist that the Sri Lankan authorities lift restrictions on humanitarian organizations and allow them to access the internally displaced persons who need them desperately.

[Income Tax Act, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I like this bill and would be very pleased to support it and see it go to committee.

It is an earth-shattering experience when people lose pension funds at any time. We have to look at a whole revamp of the Canadian pension system. This is probably a very good opportunity to do that.

One of the areas that we support and are looking at is the whole idea of insuring pension funds. It makes sense to me. People insure their bank deposits with CDIC. We insure our homes, cars and everything else. It seems only reasonable that we work out a system in this country to insure pension plans so that if a company goes bankrupt, the workers should not suffer the losses they have been suffering, and all the stress that goes with it, and the doubts that arise when people potentially are going to lose all or part of their pension funds.

I know the government has a task force studying this right now. I am confident that over time we will be able to get a proper insurance plan for pension funds.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with interest. He pointed out that he would want to make certain that a fair distribution of projects would exist between Ottawa and the Gatineau area. I think we can all agree that we should encourage that not all the development should occur on one side or the other, that there should be a good balance between those.

However, the minister indicated that under the new bill we would not need cabinet approval for real estate acquisitions. Could that be of some concern as well? Now that we are relying on the commission to make decisions, we are putting a lot of trust on it. In addition, the whole area of the green space is a big interest to my colleagues in the NDP. We want to ensure that green space is protected at all costs. We would not want to see the development and diminution of the green space over time.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I liked the part of the minister's speech on the board of directors having to submit a 50-year master plan. That sounds like a very good idea in protecting the important green space in the area.

The minister alluded to some problems that the previous board had with meetings and public information being available. Could he expand a bit as to what inspired the bringing forward of this bill at this time?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have been waiting to hear from the Liberals all morning, but I think they have gone home. I want to let them know that we are still in session.

The member for Mississauga South was complaining about second reading being a time for debate, and he was criticizing the NDP speakers, of which there have been four already this morning, for wanting the bill to go to committee so that we can hear from the presenters and introduce amendments to improve victims' rights and improve the bill. He makes those criticisms, and neither he nor the Liberal Party are putting up any speakers on the bill.

When the bill was first introduced by the government, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Brampton West were the only two Liberal speakers on the bill.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood was not actually speaking to the bill; he was just asking a question of the minister. He was trying to get information from the minister, just asking simple questions to the parliamentary secretary, who introduced the bill for the government, on how many people are convicted, on an annual basis, of murder in this country, and a series of very important questions, for which he could not get an answer from the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary did not even know the rudimentary answers to these questions. The member had to ask a second time. He got the same sort of non-response, and in fact, he had to ask a third time.

I would like to know where all these Liberal members are. They should be here defending the honour of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who could not get answers to all these questions on three occasions. Where are they, and why are they not asking these questions?