Jim Maloway

[Petitions, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by dozens of Canadians, calls on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the Chilean earthquake.

In addition to the Chilean earthquake, this year the government has given treatment to the Pakistan flood relief efforts on a matching fund basis and it has also given that same treatment to Haiti.

The petitioners would like the Prime Minister to give the same treatment to the Chilean earthquake victims as he did for the victims of the Haitian earthquake and the Pakistan flood and match the funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the Chilean earthquake.

[Petitions, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is a call against Health Canada's authorization of caffeine in all soft drinks. Health Canada announced on March 19, 2010 that the beverage companies will now be allowed to add up to 75% of the caffeine allowed in the most highly caffeinated colas to all of their soft drinks.

Soft drinks have been marketed and designed toward children for generations. Canadians already have concerns over children drinking coffee and colas as they acknowledge that caffeine is an addictive stimulant. It is difficult enough for parents to control the amount of sugar, artificial sweeteners and other additives that children consume, including caffeine from colas.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse Health Canada's new rule allowing caffeine in all soft drinks and not to follow the deregulation policies of the United States and other countries that could sacrifice the health of Canadian children and pregnant women.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in his presentation, the member pointed out the fact that this legislation was introduced under very tough circumstances in 2001 but that it did have, and rightly so, a sunset clause after five years, which legislation of this type usually has and should have. However, when it did expire after not having been applied or used, no movement was made to renew the legislation.

We have provisions under the current laws to deal with these sort of situations. As the member pointed out, we have the situation in Toronto with people being caught and charged with terrorism. We have a similar situation in Ottawa. I would also like to point out that only a few years ago in Manitoba when the Queen visited, there were two or three people who made some threats and I was told that they were simply picked up and removed for the period of time of the Queen's visit. I do not know where they were taken or what the police did with them but they just disappeared from the scene for a period of hours. Clearly, under the current laws in this country, there is ample provision for dealing with threats. We have been dealing with this issue for years.

This is a lot of window dressing on the part of a desperate government that is sinking fast in the polls and trying to recover. It comes up with some boutique crime bills that it hopes will translate into some gains in the polls. The government should know by now that it did not work in the past, that it does not seem to be working right now and that it probably will not work in the future. It should look back to the minority Parliament of Lester Pearson where, in roughly the same period of time of six years, the Lester Pearson government worked with the opposition and brought in a new flag. It joined the armed forces, brought in medicare and did many progressive things. The sooner the current government figures out that it should start working with the opposition we then could have some new initiatives for this country, but nothing is happening because of the Conservatives' belligerent attitude toward the opposition and to Parliament.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my question was really for the member for Saint Boniface who spoke previously.

There is some concern that the provisions of the bill could be used to target individuals engaged in protest or dissent. I think back to the days of the Vietnam War demonstrations and the Amchitka blast when the Americans exploded a nuclear bomb on the islands off Alaska. I was involved in that back in 1971.

If there are issues like that, how do we know the provisions of the bill will not impact on those situations? Could the member could respond to that question.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With regard to the announcement made by Health Canada on March 19, 2010, that beverage companies will now be allowed to add to all soft drinks up to 75% of the caffeine allowed in the most highly caffeinated colas: (a) who made the decision; and (b) will the Minister of Health reverse Health Canada's decision allowing caffeine in all soft drinks?

[Petitions, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today that is a call against Health Canada's authorization of caffeine in all soft drinks.

Health Canada announced on March 19 that beverage companies will now be allowed to add up to 75% of the caffeine allowed in the most highly caffeinated colas to all soft drinks.

Soft drinks have been designed and marketed toward children for generations. Canadians already have concerns over children drinking coffee and colas, as they acknowledge that caffeine is an addictive stimulant. It is difficult enough for parents to control the amount of sugar, artificial sweeteners and other additives that their children consume, including caffeine from colas.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse Health Canada's new rule allowing caffeine in all soft drinks and not follow the deregulation policies of the United States and other countries that sacrifice the health of Canadian children and pregnant women.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals made an error, but all parties could do that.

It is not up to us to tell them what they should choose for their opposition motions. Parties have the right to pick and choose their own battles. This was probably not the proper subject for them to be battling today. There are a lot of other topics that they could have picked. I mentioned MS as an example. There is unemployment and a lot of different issues that could be discussed.

I just think it was the wrong choice.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I really appreciate my time with the member, too. I expect we will talking to one another many more times in this House.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say this because it will be my last chance to make a speech or comment in this session of the House since we are planning to finish today. I have been here for 20 months now and have had a very great time after spending 23 years in the provincial legislature. I am very aware that I did not get a chance to say proper goodbyes when I was a provincial member because the election came about so suddenly. I am also aware we are in a minority government and there is a possibility we may not be back in the fall.

If that eventuality were to happen, I want to say that I have had a terrific 20 months. I have been thrilled to work with everyone here. I hope to be back after the next election, do not get me wrong. However, it has been a once-in-a-lifetime experience and I would recommend being a member of Parliament to anyone in the country.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a question of relativity as to which one of the two coalition partners in the House are the most disorganized. I have seen the government trying to recover from the prorogation debacle of a few months ago where it torched its 36 bills, 19 tough on crime bills. Does it bring them all back in at the beginning of the session like it should have to allow the opposition to pick and choose which ones it wants to pass? No. The Conservatives wait on the pardon legislation and call it two days before the end of the session. If that is not either just plan stupidity or brinkmanship, I am not sure which one, but it has to be one of the two.

I would not take the view that somehow the Liberals are a bunch of incompetents here. The Conservatives are the government. They are supposed to be organized. They are supposed to have their legislative agenda in order and are responsible for getting things through.

I really want to compliment them and the minister for his refugee bill. He did a great job on that as did Parliament. We need more of that. I ask the government to live up to what Pearson did when he was in a minority situation. It should set some goals and try to attain them rather than to try to torch committees and short-circuit the process and cause all kinds of problems. Why does the government not set a goal to get some real legislation through—