Jim Maloway

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for an excellent presentation regarding Bill C-16. We are looking at a bill that is 193 pages long and is quite involved.

One area that I would like to question her about is the whole area of the enforcement officers and the training methods for these officers. We are concerned that the officers be highly trained in their jobs and therefore able to correctly implement the environmental practices.

Again we are concerned about the government's capacity and desire to enforce this act, once we go through the final processes and pass it into law. Would the member comment on that particular issue of the enforcement officers?

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand an amendment was made at committee to allow private prosecutions under the act, probably because a number of the members did not trust the government to properly enforce the legislation.

If we allow private prosecutions, would that also impact on class action lawsuits? The member is probably aware that Quebec and Manitoba, and I think possibly B.C., have class action lawsuit legislation. Would there be any application of that type of approach and that type of legislation to this bill? If not, could there be?

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member dealt at length with an area that I am certainly interested in, and that is the whole issue of research jobs and the whole area of research where we are losing ground to the United States, particularly with the Obama administration promoting research.

The question I have for her is this. Why does she think the government is sitting idly by and allowing our research jobs to be taken from this country and taken to the United States, and where are we going to be after three or four years with a policy like that?

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the member a follow-up question. I am sure my hon. friend, the member for Saint Boniface, was dying to get to her feet and ask this.

We note that in the bill, the financial penalties are very harsh for individuals, but curiously, very weak for corporations. The example given was that ExxonMobil made an estimated $477 billion in 2008, and a punishment of $10 million is not much more than the cost of doing business with such a corporation.

Since the member for Saint Boniface is not asking this question, I ask it on her behalf.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was electrifying. It certainly was a barnburner of a speech. I know the member for Saint Boniface and some of her colleagues listened to every word. He certainly got their attention.

If this is how the government acts in a minority situation, imagine what would happen if Canadians gave it a majority government. Imagine how lax enforcement would be in all sorts of areas.

I want to specifically ask the member for his observations on one of the clauses in the legislation, regarding the definition of a vessel. It is given in the changes to the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act, where it states that a vessel is a boat, ship or craft for use on water. It also mentions that fixed platforms are not included in the description. The amendment goes on to outline punishments and laws for vessels that break the environmental law under the act. Fixed platforms and oil rigs are never mentioned.

I see a potential huge liability for fixed platforms and oil rigs. Why would those not be included in the definition of vessel or not dealt with separately?

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have strong penalties in the legislation, and there has to be a commitment by the government to enforce the legislation. We have to see what the regulations will be behind the bill and how strong they will be to support it.

We, in our Party, have agreed that the bill is a step in the right direction, but it has its flaws. It will only be as strong as the political will shown by the government to implement it.

As member knows, we have suspicions that the Conservative government is not overly committed to strong enforcement of environmental laws, consumer laws or any other type of laws that protect Canadians.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's very thoughtful and excellent presentation. I like his comments about an east-west power grid, something that we would sure like to have out of Manitoba and our hydro system.

Bill C-16 deals with strengthening the penalties, but there is no rationale for the minimum and maximum penalties that are indicated in the bill. In fact, what it does is it usurps the authority of the courts by prescribing the minimum penalty and the maximum penalty.

We should have a situation where the courts have some leeway to make higher penalties. For example, the maximum penalty is increased to $6 million, but that seems very minimal if we look at a case like the Exxon Valdez or other situations like that. Clearly, this would be a very small and a very limited penalty to have in a case of a huge spill like that. There should not be a maximum. It should be left to the courts to make a decision.

In the bigger picture, could the member comment on the long-promised strengthening standards and regulations for air pollutants, toxins and greenhouse gases? Then I will proceed with another question.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers really hit the nail on the head. Over the last couple of debates we have dealt with the issues involved here, but only the last two speakers have really dealt with solutions.

Is the solution to conduct an advertising campaign? Where have we been all these years? We should be looking at the possibilities more aggressively. What are we doing in terms of a plan of action involving an all-party committee? This sounds reasonable as well. We all seem to be in agreement here in the House and we are all making speeches, but beyond that who really hears us at this point.

We should probably have an all-party committee that could aggressively put out the arguments to dispel the myths that are being propagated over there in Europe. It is absolutely unbelievable that we are just going to sit back and let the EU get away with what it is doing. I applaud the last two speakers. I would like to hear some further comments from the member.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have had many years of Canadians not fighting back on this issue, and we have seen the hypocrisy of the European Union in its arguments. Last week a Liberal member pointed out the hypocrisy of the wild boar hunt in Germany and other examples of that.

Does the seal industry in Canada have any plan to deal with this issue through advertising programs, through websites and so on, in an effort to fight back?

[Air Passengers' Bill of Rights, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, things have developed much the way I expected they would with the bill. We have just heard two speeches from members opposite who basically regurgitated all of the misinformation the airlines council has been trying to get out, I would say more unsuccessfully than not.

I know members are used to one-page private member's bills, but this is only 11 pages long. The bill is very simple to read and I am going to go through some of the exemptions we gave to the airlines, but obviously those members do not recognize them as such.

I sent a letter to one of the newspapers the other day and I sent a copy to MPs today. The letter reads:

There is a great deal of misinformation about the air passenger bill of rights being circulated by Canada's airlines in a bid to scare the public. I would like to set the record straight on a few key points.

Currently, there are no provisions for monetary compensation for flight delays in Bill C-310.

The Conservatives say there are monetary penalties and compensation for flight delays. There are none.

However, the Bill does require, in case of delay of two hours or more, that the airline provide meals and refreshments.

That is reasonable.

If a delay requires an overnight stay, accommodation and local transportation must be provided.

That is reasonable, and is already done in many cases.

The passenger also has the option of receiving a full refund for a delay of five hours or more.

That is new. That is taken from the European Union legislation. I think it is reasonable that if people have been waiting for five hours and they want their money back, they should be able to get it back. Most people will not ask for their money back. Most people will stay and wait a few hours longer. Their bags are packed and they are ready to go. They will stay longer. Maybe at least the airline would be nicer to them, maybe give them an extra meal voucher to keep them there so that they will not cash in the ticket. However, people would have the right to get their money back after five hours and that is reasonable.

In the case of passengers who have had flights to Mexico cancelled by the airline, Bill C-310 would require the airline to offer reimbursement of the full fare, which some airlines are currently refusing to do. Under the extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, airlines would not have to pay compensation, just refund the cost of the ticket.

Those great consumer advocates in the airlines, while making their big announcement on Monday, are refusing to give back fares that passengers have paid to go to Mexico as we speak. The bill would not offer any compensation. It would say to reimburse them the money, which is what they should do, but in terms of compensation, there is no compensation payable. Why? Because it is an extraordinary circumstance exclusion. Weather is an extraordinary circumstance as would be the flu situation in Mexico. There would not be compensation for those.

Overbooking involves airlines selling your seat to someone else. If you're not allowed to board a flight because your seat has been sold, why shouldn't you get $500, $800 or $1200 in compensation for the inconvenience? Air Canada has been paying customers these amounts for 4 years in Europe.

Actually, that has been occurring since 1991, but at a lower amount.

Why should Canadian passengers receive lesser treatment?

As regards the tarmac delays, airlines are given an exclusion if it is unsafe to disembark from the aircraft.

Why do they not recognize that?

As you can see, there is plenty of leeway for the airlines under the bill if they would take the time to read its provisions rather than trying to scare the public.

I am going to deal with the exclusions because that seems to be the key to this whole situation. All they have to do is look at subclause 4(c) on page 3 of the bill. It states:

(iii) the air carrier can prove that the cancellation of the flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

We leave it wide open. The airlines do not have to pay a cent. If they follow the rules, they would not pay a cent in any event.

Let us deal with the tarmac delays. They love to get on this. Subclause 6(1)(d) states:

(d) an opportunity to disembark from the aircraft if it is possible to do so without causing any undue risk to the health or safety of the passengers or any other person or the safe operation of the aircraft or any other aircraft.

That is their exclusion. If it is a weather problem, they can say it is unsafe to get off the plane. What is the problem?