Malcolm Allen

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am not actually a lawyer by profession, but clearly, if the aggrieved parties believe they are entitled to litigate, they will go forward with that litigation and ask a group of lawyers to look into it.

At least on the surface, I would suggest that it looks as if that may well be the case and that their claim that there may be a constitutional violation is correct. That ultimately would mean that we would head down that road of litigation.

As I said earlier, the initial issue over the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that went to litigation went on for decades, if I remember correctly. I have to admit that I was a very young man then. In fact, I might even have been a teenager. I do not remember my teenage years, actually. It seems like a long time ago. I am not quite sure why I do not remember them. I think it is an aging process. Some others in this place have suggested that they do not remember certain years because of certain aspects of their life; I am not suggesting that. Clearly, in my case, I think it is just age.

To be truthful, the sense is that the groups believe they can litigate. Normally what that means is that they end up going to a law firm. I would bet my bottom dollar that it would not be a law firm in Welland that takes this on. It would be constitutional experts. This would end up in protracted fight, and that is not good for anyone.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they will. To give them credit where credit is due, they are allowing us to talk to the bill, and I think that is a good sign, and we need to continue to do that.

My colleagues have quoted from a number of sources who say that we need to talk some more. I understand the other side saying that we have had consultations. How much do we talk about this issue? I found in my previous life as a bargaining agent that we have to talk it out to get an agreement, because if we force an agreement, we end up with more trouble at the end of the road.

There have been some suggestions, although not by me, because I am not a lawyer, that it will probably go to litigation. I believe that my friend from Victoria mentioned that, and I know him to be a noteworthy person of integrity who studies the law. In fact, he came from my neck of the woods, in St. Catharines, before he transplanted to Victoria. He has asked if they want to head to litigation.

We know how long litigation takes. I have forgotten how long it took the Mackenzie Valley pipeline initially, because it seems to me, and I hate to date myself, that I was a pretty young guy when that process started. It took a heck of a long time to get through all the court processes and to get to the point where it is now. I am not so sure we want to see that again, but maybe that is where this could head.

No suit has been brought forward. The legislation has not been passed, and there is no royal assent. We have no idea where it would go. Clearly, to look at the history of litigation in the Northwest Territories, the likelihood is that it will be litigated. That would be a shame.

The Northwest Territories has said that it wants to head down the path of devolution. On this side, we want to head down that path with them. We simply ask the government to take into consideration the two pieces that we think should come out.

I recognize that it is a big ask, especially at this stage of the bill, but it may well be something that will be of benefit to the Northwest Territories, to the peoples who live there, and ultimately to the government, because if it ends up being litigated, it will be the government that will defend its legislation in the courts. That means that the folks in Welland will pay for the litigation on the government side, because we will have to pay the government's lawyers. That will be a cost to others across the country, and that would seem unfair.

We should respect the folks in the Northwest Territories. We respect the parts about devolving. That piece the government got right. The other piece, not so much. Some folks are a bit ambivalent about it, and others say we need to slow it down.

I would say to the other side, perhaps we could step away from that piece. Take it back to the discussion phase and hammer out an agreement, because I think we could get one. It seems to me that someone needs to bargain this one out so we get to a resolution. The last thing we want is to put the hammer down on someone who will fight back at some time in the future. It would do no good. The good piece we will lose, because the devolving piece will get lost in the acrimony, and the Conservatives deserve to take credit for the devolving piece.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is very kind of you. Perhaps the devolved powers of Scotland got passions inflamed at the other end of the House.

Clearly, it is a difficult process, as I was suggesting earlier. How do we walk down that path? In Scotland's case, there were two parties involved. There was the Westminster Parliament and what became the Scottish Parliament after the powers were devolved. There were only two entities involved, because it was an act of union between Scotland and England when the two Parliaments came together. There was a historical context, and devolution after the fact could rely on the historical context. Nonetheless, it did not make it simple to devolve.

On the other hand, with the NWT, there is no precedent in a sense that there was a parliament historically that went away and now wants to come back. The powers have been granted because it is a territory without the same powers the provinces have. Some of us would argue that this oversight has been there for far too long and needs to be addressed. It is being addressed with this particular piece of legislation.

Inside of the territory, a number of nations are signatories to treaties with the crown. The government, through the Governor General, being the agent of the crown, has an obligation to speak to them.

Some would ask how much consultation is enough consultation. I would think one needs to work at it to a point where the parties come to an agreement. One cannot just impose if there was a previous agreement about how to do these things, especially when it comes to the use of water and land.

I was in the municipal world as an elected official at one point. When upper-tier municipalities in Ontario would try to tell lower-tier municipalities how to use water and where to take it from or where they should put it, the lower tier's ability to decide and make decisions about development would be negated. That is usually what a fight would be over. Lower-tier municipalities would say that they wanted the right to decide where development would be, and the only way they could do that would be if the upper-tier municipalities would give them the right to make decisions about water usage and where to put it.

I used that analogy because that is what is happening here. If we take the right away from the regional boards and give it to one board, we ostensibly give, in the eye of the regional boards, an upper-tier board the right to decide what development will look like, especially when it comes to land use, resources, and water. They will see that as something that is being taken away from them and not necessarily as something being given to them as a benefit. That seems to be part of the issue here in the sense of what we do or do not do.

If we are going to devolve, there are aspects that are highly appropriate. The territorial government in the Northwest Territories is saying that it is happy devolving certain powers, and it wants to head along that path. We should respect that, and we do respect it on this side. I believe that the government, to be fair, has also respected devolving powers to the territory. The government should take credit for that, and I am sure it will.

The hiccup on this side is the other issues related to the regional boards. I would ask the government to consider that. I am not suggesting that the government is saying that it is doing it “just because”. I do not think that is the rationale. I think it believes that this is better.

The difficult part is that there are many signatories to the treaties and the agreements.They do not believe that they should give it up at this moment in time.

We would suggest that the government split it. I recognize that the government does not always like to do that. It likes to bundle some things together. It tries to speed things along, and we see it all the time. It tries to speed things along and get things out of the way.

I must admit that the Conservatives did not have time allocation on the bill, and we are grateful that they did not do that.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-15 and to talk to this idea of devolution. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, for his work on behalf of the broader constituents of the NWT. I have to admit that I only had the opportunity to go there once prior to my coming to this place a number of years ago. What a wondrous place the NWT is. It is an absolutely marvellous place.

My colleague from the Western Arctic has been very clear about our support for devolution. Let me give it some context in the sense of where I grew up and came from. Scotland also went through a process of devolution. Devolution by its very nature is a difficult process. It is not simple to devolve powers to another entity. It is just not one of those things--

[Petitions, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a number of petitions on behalf of people across the Prairies in support of maintaining the shelterbelt. The petitioners are calling upon the Prime Minister to reverse the defunding decision for the shelterbelt program so that it continues. It is an essential program for farmers and westerners. They would like to see this continue until they can take it over. They request that funding be reintroduced.

[Agriculture and Agri-food, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last night, we had an emergency debate on the crisis of grain transportation. There seemed to be a wide consensus that we really need to get tough with railways, but the government's sole suggestion last night was “let us have another study”.

There is an old story about a donkey, a carrot, and a stick. We can wave the carrot in front of the donkey and see if it moves. If it does not, hit it with the stick. It seems it is time for the minister to get out his big stick.

When are farmers going to see more than a study, and when is the minister going to take action on the crisis for Prairie grain farmers?

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated by the minister of state's defence of time allocation. He tells us what the bill is about and then says that we are debating the bill.

Well, no, we are not. Mr. Speaker, you actually said that we are not. Through you to the minister of state, I say that clearly we cannot debate the bill; we can only debate time allocation.

I find it fascinating that the minister of state is saying that we can debate the bill at committee. I actually do not sit on that committee, and the vast majority of us do not.

Is the minister of state now telling us that he will allow this committee, which has its own rules and is the master of its destiny, to give all of us enough time on that committee to actually have an opportunity to debate, or are there really no teeth in the bill that he is saying has sharper teeth?

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend across the way for his knowledgeable and heartfelt story about not just his farm and the young folks who work his farm but what farmers are feeling. He articulated extremely well what the effect is of what is happening out there.

A lot of statistics have been thrown about back and forth as to whether the rail companies did better in the first quarter of last year's harvest versus other times. There is a famous saying, “Figures don't lie, but liars figure”. That is not about anyone here in particular who is suggesting that. It is simply an old saying that the Scots use in the sense that we can make a penny a threepence if we want. Let me say this. There were 7.4 million tonnes exported in the first quarter of this crop year. We look back five years; we kind of get stuck on the five-year piece. In 1994, 8.7 million tonnes were exported. That is a fact. Therefore, we can look back and say that they did better in that quarter versus some other times.

My colleague across the way talked about the stick, and I surely suggested the stick of regulation. Perhaps we should look at it. Let me point to a regulation that my colleagues down the way took away. At one point in time there was a $720 million subsidy for the rail companies. When they did not behave themselves, the threat from the government was that it would take some of that away. That became a stick. It never took any of it away, but it was there. I see some heads nodding. It was under the Western Grain Transportation Act, which was in place between 1984 and 1995. The federal government subsidized private grain shipments by about $720 million. If a government has that stick, that is the stick to use. However, the government does not have that stick anymore. Does it want a new one to play with? That is what I am suggesting.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help my friends across the way understand collective bargaining, since I did it for 20 years. A tentative agreement means that there is an agreement in principle and there will probably be ratification. Perhaps one ought to stay out of the way and let the parties make the final decision, since none of us get to vote on it. The folks who are the workers get to vote on it.

Does my colleague not believe that the government needs to act? It is wonderful to have a study. I am sure there will be wonderful data that comes from that study. Eventually we will finally get something down the road that we might use and go forward with it. Does she agree with me that what needs to happen now is that the government needs to take action on what is now a crisis on the Prairies when it comes to grain?

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that is true. There is no question that there are issues with the grain companies themselves. In fact, at the agriculture committee before the winter recess, a question was posed to them about what would happen with these additional charges, because it is costing them. The answer from the grain companies that we heard was, “If you can get it from the railroad, we will give it back to farmers”.

Clearly, the grain companies are saying that farmers are on their own. They will not fight for them. They will not stand up for them. The railroad will not give the money back. At the end of the day, farmers will be out of pocket from these additional charges.

The coordination between the elevator companies and the ports is off. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, the gentleman from the Port Authority of Vancouver said, “We are literally shovelling ships up and down the berth to simply load them part way and then let them go out, and load them part way again and then bring in some other ship”.

Clearly, it is an inefficient system. It needs to be rectified now.