Jim Maloway

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am still waiting for an answer to a question I asked the member at second reading. He will recall that I was concerned about the whole issue of the pill making machines, about which the Americans seemed concerned. On one of my trips with the U.S.-Canada committee, the issue of pill making machines came up. Since the Americans regulate pill making machines and the repair of them, they feel there should be a paper trail. They do not think that is the case in Canada. Ever since that happened, Toronto became a big centre for production of methamphetamine partly, in their view, because pill making machines were not regulated.

The member indicated to me that while it was not specified in the bill, he was unclear as to whether it could be included. Where are we with that? We should take an opportunity to do this right. If pill making machines are a big issue, then we should make the rule that anybody who buys one has to register it and anyone who repairs one need to registered it as well.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

I would ask the member if he would like to comment and, if any of the members opposite want to comment, they can take their turns too.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for his assessment of the Conservative agenda on Veterans Affairs and the military, basically a report card on its last four years.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they promised to do a number of things. They promised to look into the agent orange situation and to take care of veterans' benefits. What we have seen over the last four years are a lot of unresolved issues with the government, to the point where a couple of weeks ago in Calgary the Prime Minister had a photo op at a food bank for veterans.

British Columbia has homeless shelters for veterans. This should not happen in a country such as this. Veterans' hospital beds are being reduced or taken out of service and they will not be there for future generations of veterans.

While we see some incremental improvements like this bill, which we are all supporting today, we find that the Conservatives fall far short of their initial promises when they were in opposition, before they became government. It seems that since they have become government, it has been downhill for veterans and the military forces in this country.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a further question of my colleague.

The member is aware, as are all Canadians, of the very stressful and dangerous position that we put our service personnel in on their missions. Yesterday a member spoke very eloquently about his trip to Afghanistan and how it was a dangerous situation for him to even exit the plane at the airport. In fact, I believe there were some delays even in landing the plane at the airport.

He also mentioned the fact that the soldiers slept in tents and that there was always a fear of rockets hitting the soldiers on base. There is also the high death rate in Afghanistan right now with people being victims of the roadside bombs.

A lot of people would not want to be in this situation. The personnel could easily stay home, especially the reservists, get regular 9 to 5 jobs, sleep in their beds at night and have weekends off, but those military members put themselves at great risk when they go overseas. When they do have traumatic experiences, many of them come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol problems and drug abuse problems. Suicide rates can also be an issue.

This is a very serious issue. Those people deserve proper benefits. Yesterday, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned a list of items that the government promised before it was elected government and then reneged on them. He talked about the food bank for veterans in Calgary, which the Prime Minister attended for a photo op just a couple of weeks ago. He talked about homeless shelters for veterans. That should never happen in a country like this.

The government has made promises. It promised to resolve the agent orange issue in New Brunswick. That was not entirely resolved to the satisfaction of the military personnel. The government also made other promises and it took very tentative steps.

Yet when it comes to the photo ops and the ceremonies, the government is there, right up front, taking credit and trying to present itself as being very supportive of the military and the military personnel. However, when the rubber hits the road, when it comes down to bringing in proper legislation that will help the military and the military families, where is the government? It is not here.

When it does have a chance to do something, it brings in Bill C-13. The argument has been made that this did not have to be a bill, that it could have been done through regulations or order-in-council. It is an important measure, but it only involves 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 per year.

It is a first step, but we do not want the government to stop there. We want it to proceed and deal in a methodical way with all the other listed issues outlined by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in his excellent speech yesterday.

Would the member like to make any further comments on that?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we witnessed an excellent speech by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who properly explained all the issues involved with service personnel and veterans and why the current government was not treating them the way it should.

This measure is one where we think the government is doing the right thing. It is not a huge expenditure. We are talking about 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 a year.

However, Bill C-13 would specifically enable the Canadian Forces members, including reservists, who had their parental leave deferred or have been ordered to return to duty while on leave due to a military requirements to access EI parental benefits. The measure would extend the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. This is just a common sense provision that they should have had years ago.

Parental benefits provide income replacement of up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents, while they care for newborn or newly adopted children. We know how important that is in the first year or two of lives, not only for the children, but for the parents as well.

Another good benefit is it can be taken by either parent or it can be shared between them. If the parents opt to share the benefits, there is only one two-week waiting period to be served.

All of us are in agreement with the bill. It is my understanding that the bill will proceed to committee, certainly by the end of today. As far as I know, all the parties are on the same side. The only question remains is whether the amendments proposed by our member and the member of the Bloc will be endorsed and supported at committee.

Yesterday, the minister indicated that she would be willing to look at these amendments. Therefore, we hope our amendment to extend these provisions to members of the police force who are on these missions will be accepted as well as the Bloc amendment to bring in a former retroactivity.

If that happens, we should be able to do one of the things the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore said should be done for veterans. However, this still leaves a long list of things that the government should do, things it promised in the past and still has not done for our veterans and service personnel.

Would the member like to make further comments on these points? Should we endorse the all party agreement to get this to committee and get these results in play?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 7th, 2010]

With regard to the government's aid to Chile, following the earthquake and tsunami of February 27, 2010: (a) what are the government's current commitments in aid for the victims and rebuilding efforts in Chile; and (b) what other efforts are being considered?

[Petitions, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is also signed by dozens of Canadians calling on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the earthquake in Chile. On February 27, 2010 an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in southern Chile.

The Canadian Chilean community has been mobilized and has held fundraising events in Winnipeg, several in fact. There is another one coming up, I believe, on May 22. It has raised considerable amounts of money for earthquake relief.

The question that everyone is asking, when will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the earthquake in Chile?

[Petitions, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is signed by dozens of Canadians and represent a call against Health Canada's authorization of caffeine in all soft drinks.

Health Canada announced on March 19, 2010 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 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.

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 at the sacrifice of the health of Canadian children and pregnant women.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very good presentation.

The question has been asked whether reservists are included in the bill. The bill deals with roughly 50 to 60 cases per year and will cost about $600,000 a year.

The proposed measure does include reservists who due to military requirements have their parental leave deferred or are ordered to return to duty while on leave under the EI parental benefits. The measure also extends the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. In fact, parental benefits provide income replacement for up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. The benefits may be taken by either parent or shared between them. If the parents opt for these benefits, only one two-week waiting period must be served.

I thought I should point that out because I was asked that question.

Would the member be willing to entertain the amendment from the NDP which would include the measure to include police officers involved in these missions?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he does not need to wake up the NDP. We are very attuned to this issue. We are in favour of sending the bill to committee and I believe we are in support of the Bloc's amendment to backdate the coverage for people who are already in the process, because the bill says that the measure will not start until it receives royal assent.

However, is he planning to support the NDP amendment brought forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, which would expand the coverage of these 50 to 60 people who would be covered under the bill to include members of the police forces who are deployed as part of missions outside of Canada, along with the military?