Jim Maloway

[Petitions, April 16th, 2010]

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

Dozens of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising.

Legislation of this type has been in effect in Europe now for well over five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers should be treated better in Europe than in their home country, Canada.

Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed these rules, it would cost them nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

[Chile, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's aid to Chile in the wake of the earthquake that rocked the country on February 27, 2010, I would like to know the government's complete list of commitments to current aid for the victims in Chile along with other efforts still under consideration.

When will the Canadian government match dollar for dollar the personal donations of Canadians for the victims of the earthquake in Chile as it did for the earthquake in Haiti? When will the government give the same treatment to Chile as it gave to Haiti?

[Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government tends to give the impression that somehow the offenders who are transferred back to Canada will be out on the street, that they will be a danger to somebody. The fact is members know they will be transferred directly to jail. They will not be a danger to the public at that point.

In the last 29 years, almost 30 years now, only 1,351 offenders have been transferred to Canada, so we are not talking about a huge number. The member indicated that we were talking about small numbers.

This is all a public relations exercise. The—

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill. We are now in the second hour of debate. I spoke for a few minutes in the last hour, so I will continue.

I think every member of the House sees merit in Bill C-473 and will support it. Therefore, we thank the member for Perth—Wellington for having brought the bill before the House. It deals with the transfer of insignia of military orders, decorations and medals of cultural significance to persons who are not residents of Canada.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, our NDP caucus spokesperson on this issue, has a similar bill, Bill C-208, in the House. Although it is not exactly the same, it is similar enough that he hopes that when we get the bill to committee, he may be able to get parts of his bill adopted by the members into this bill to make it a better one.

In essence, the position the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on this bill is he would like to see the currency taken out of the equation. He feels the medals should be viewed as unsaleable to anyone and when they are not longer required by the families of people who had the medals, they should be put in a repository such as a museum or he even suggested MPs' offices. There are many methods for dealing with the different types of military orders and decorations.

I spent considerable time on this issue and I looked forward to getting into the history. The more I read about the issue, the more interesting I found this matter.

I thought it was best to start at the beginning, so I went back to Roman times. That is when medals were first created. The Romans developed a complex hierarchy of military honours, ranging from crowns that were presented to senior officers to mark victories in major campaigns. There was a discussion around metal discs and other types of metals.

Then we got into the era of the Spanish Armada in 1588 during the reign of Elizabeth I, when she issued commemorative metals to mark England's victory over the Spanish Armada.

Then we moved on to the days of Oliver Cromwell. He issued medals to people who participated in the Battle of Dunbar. Then we got to the time of 1815 when medals were awarded to people who served during the Battle of Waterloo. I just saw a program a couple of weeks ago on the issue of Napoleon's history in France, ending with the Battle of Waterloo.

There is a storied history going back to Roman days involving medals. In fact, Canada has a long history of medals. It started with the governors of New France desiring to establish European honours in Canada. They established a Military Order of Malta in New France between 1635 and 1648.

After the establishment of the British North America Act, Canadians were entitled to receive British imperial honours, though the awarding was not consistently allowed. Besides knighthoods, peerage titles, both hereditary and in life, that were also bestowed on Canadians, sometimes it was uniquely Canadian designations, such as Baroness Macdonald of Earnscliffe and Baron Beaverbrook of Beaverbrook, in the province of New Brunswick.

The fact is over time these medals more and more became—

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech.

In the 1880s, John A. Macdonald and the Conservative Party had a dream of unifying the country by building a railway across the country. A similar type of dream exists in that a lot of people want to build an east-west power grid to move clean hydroelectric power across Canada, as opposed to just north and south, as is the case now.

The minister for democratic reform has been a leader on this issue, but he is not getting the support from the nine Conservative MPs from Manitoba nor the 14 Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan. The fact of the matter is that in the last three days, no Conservatives have been speaking to this budget. I am sure that the member for Portage—Lisgar would have liked to speak to this budget and talk about the east-west power grid. I am sure the member for Brandon—Souris would have liked to speak to this budget and talk about the east-west power grid. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the member for Winnipeg South, the member for Saint Boniface and the member for Selkirk—Interlake, I know all these members would have loved to get up and put on the record that they want their government to commit to building an east-west power grid.

I want them to start helping the minister for democratic reform because he is doing a good job. We have to work together as a federal government with the provincial governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to make this dream a reality.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government is sending the wrong signals to the unemployed and the working people of this country when it takes a corporate tax rate and lowers it to 12%. When it has record bank profits of $15 billion and allows CEOs to make $10 million a year, that is not reality for average people.

An article in today's Globe and Mail talks about the Minister of Finance acting as an unpaid lobbyist for the banks. He is trying to get a good deal for the banks, negotiating with the G7 and the G20, who are trying to regulate the banks, bring in a new regulation scheme and put some restrictions on what these bank presidents can earn. Does the member agree with what the G7 and the G20 are trying to do?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member has analysed this quite well. However, we are missing another big element. Where are the Conservative speakers? We have debated this 880 page implementation bill for three days now. As the member said, there are issues in the bill all cobbled together, such as the post office remailer, which have nothing to do with the budget, and nobody shows up to speak for the government. Therefore, we have a debate going on among the opposition parties. It is all about that. We cannot ask the government any questions because there is nobody to ask any questions of.

Several Bloc members have talked about the issue of tax havens. The government is obviously siding with the banks. The banks are making $15 billion at a time of recession when 880,000 people are unemployed. Bank presidents are making $10 million a year. When it became apparent that people were using tax havens, the $3 billion that have been sitting in tax havens, the government's answer was to offer a tax amnesty. When the information became public, because a bank employee sold records to the German government a couple of years ago, Canadians were running into Revenue Canada offices to take advantage of the amnesty to pay the taxes.

In other words, the message of the government is to take advantage of tax havens and all people have to do is pay—

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I did sense the member could have made a lot longer speech and I will give him an opportunity to continue.

The member talked about bank profits, and we know they were $15.9 billion last year, with the CEO of the Royal Bank making about $10.4 million. This was at a time when 800,000 Canadians were out of work. This was at a time when the world was slipping into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The government essentially supports the big banks. Tara Perkins has a story in the Globe and Mail today. In essence, the Minister of Finance is pretty much an unpaid lobbyist for the banks, by the looks of it. She says, “bankers are more concerned about a number of international rule changes, and when it comes to fighting those they have Ottawa's backing”. Therefore, the Minister of Finance is fighting international rule changes on behalf of the banks at the international level.

President Barack Obama is trying to overhaul the entire financial regulatory system. Meanwhile, Ottawa is working on just minor changes.

In addition, the G7 and the G20 nations are trying to set up a fund to take care of failing banks in the future. Once again, the Minister of Finance and the government are opposed to this. They are fighting the measure on behalf of the banks.

In addition, the G7 and G20 countries are coming out with guidelines for remuneration for bank executives. Guess what? The government and the minister are opposing it on behalf of the banks. Once again, the minister is essentially an unpaid lobbyist for the banking interests in our country.

Would the member like to comment on that and offer any other insights and information about that point?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that last year the banks made record profits, in fact $15.9 billion, and the CEOs of the banks received record salaries and benefits as well. The presidents and CEOs of the RBC and the TD made roughly $10.4 million. One would think that the Conservatives would be supporting President Barack Obama to overhaul the financial institutions given what we have seen with a world recession over the last year. We have The Globe and Mail reporter, Tara Perkins, today reporting that the bankers in Canada are concerned about these international rules that are coming from the G7 and G8. In fact, they have the finance minister of Canada out there acting basically as an unpaid lobbyist for the banking industry in Canada.

As a matter of fact, I have been told that guidelines are being put forward by the G7 and G8 on compensation for bank CEOs and presidents. We have the banks lobbying actively against it and we have the finance minister of Canada looking out for those banks trying to make certain that for whatever the G7 and G8 want to put forward in terms of guidelines that he exempts the Canadian banks. He is supporting this laissez-faire approach to free enterprise, which, by the way, got us into this mess in the first place. It is basically a throwback to the George Bush Republican days in the United States.

Does the member have any comments about why the Conservatives would be actively promoting the interests of the banks at the international level?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly request for the member. As he knows, the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP all supported Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights, but when it got to the transport committee, the Bloc critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, basically turned against Quebec air travellers and joined forces with the Conservatives and recommended that the bill not be proceeded with. I know that most Bloc members are very progressive people, so I was quite surprised by this development.

I would like to ask the member whether he would investigate why his party's critic joined the Conservatives and effectively attempted to kill the bill. It still has to be dealt with in Parliament and I just want to make certain that all members are aware of what actually happened at the committee.

If he would investigate this, that would be a very positive step.