Malcolm Allen

[International Trade, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's dairy and cheese industry provides good, high-paying, middle-class jobs.

Dairy farmers and cheese makers are central to many rural communities across this country. These farmers produce high-quality products at affordable prices without receiving one cent in government subsidy.

Why are Conservatives going to jeopardize the livelihood of dairy farmers and cheese makers across this country?

[Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of many prairie landowners and folks in the Prairies around what is quite commonly called the prairie shelterbelt program, which has literally inundated the Prairies with trees over the many years. The petitioners are calling on the government to restore funding to ensure that those millions of seedlings can be planted annually going forward and to re-establish that program.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's response to the XL report is irrational. He promised $15 million in new monies and yet cut $56 million at the same time. Then he announced a brand new program, but no new staff. He is literally moving some from here to there or maybe over there too. Who knows? He is playing a shell game with Canada's food safety in an attempt to hide his mismanagement.

Canadian families cannot wait five years for the next audit. The need for an audit is now. Will the minister order a comprehensive audit of CFIA immediately?

[Food Safety, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the report on the XL beef crisis made it clear that the largest beef recall in Canadian history was preventable.

The report says the minister should read chapter 4 of the Weatherill report, called “How does Canada's food safety system work?”.

Yet again, the minister has failed Canadian families. When will the minister stand up and take responsibility for his failures?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened, quite frankly, ad nauseam to the job creation plans of this government, but this is the first time I have ever heard that the Senate is a job creation plan. However, there is no question in my mind that it is. There is no doubt about it, when the Conservatives have been jamming them in there like there is no tomorrow. I guess if that is job creation, then they can add those 60-odd members to the number that they make up all the time.

To my friend down the end for Winnipeg North, he has to get with the 21st century. The bottom line is, the Senate is an archaic institution. If they are not paid as of July 1, if they go on strike, the government can do what it has done to everyone else who went on strike in the public service and legislate them back to work. Let us see if they can do that. Let us see if they can manage that. If that is what you want to do--

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Halifax for speaking about our late leader, Jack Layton. Quite frankly, with regards to the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, it was absolutely contemptible that he would actually stand and say what he did.

Besides all of that, it is clear to me, although it is not as clear to my colleague down there. Then again, they are Liberals and I would not expect it to be clear. That is why they are like flags on a flag pole, whichever way the wind blows today, they will blow that way too.

The bottom line is that there are many folks who would be more than pleased to come here and serve their country. In fact, I could name five people in Welland for the member for Halifax. I have heard Senators say that is why they are there. They are there to serve our country. Let them come and serve, and we will give them per diem. However, they do not need to get paid. If the parliamentary secretary says that the only reason they come is because they get a salary, perhaps that is not who we want to have in there in the first place.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 3rd, 2013]

With regard to the horse meat contamination of imported goods: (a) what is the policy of the government in dealing with these products; (b) what percentage of imported meat is tested for horse meat contamination; (c) how many incidents of horse meat contamination have been discovered in the last 12 months, listed by product type, including all pertinent designations, port of discovery, date of discovery, total weight of contaminated goods, percentage of horse meat discovered in each case of contamination, all details about handling and packaging of each case of contamination, country of origin, shipper, receiver, distributor, intended destination, intended final product; (d) what action was taken upon discovery of each case of contamination; (e) how many cases of horse meat contaminated products were (i) sent back to the shipper, (ii) ordered destroyed, (iii) allowed to continue to their destination, (iv) made their way or were presumed to have made their way into the food system for human consumption; and (f) what are the brand names of products contaminated with horse meat sold to Canadians?

[Labour, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, 100 workers at Veritas Communications found themselves out of work this January when the company simply closed its doors and declared bankruptcy, unfortunately in the United States. It should have declared bankruptcy in this country, but it did not. If it had done so, the wage earner protection program would have covered these workers to the tune of $3,640 for each and every individual worker, but now we find that these workers are in limbo.

Will the Minister of Labour take immediate action to help these workers receive the WEPP money they so rightly deserve?

[Labour, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, 100 workers at Veritas Communications lost their jobs when the company closed its doors and put them out of work. The company subsequently—

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that colleagues have pointed out a number of times tonight is the potential to change things and then expect folks to understand them or know about them and perhaps have illegal implications. That is what stands out for folks as well as ensuring it is in both official languages. It becomes a dilemma for people who have to follow a regulation under the penalty of perhaps the law not knowing that it has actually changed. They may be living under a regulation that no longer exists.

My colleague for Okanagan—Coquihalla talked about where the number 170 came from. When the Minister of Justice came before the committee he said that since 2006, he found that the express authorization of Parliament had not been given to changes 170 times. Therefore, the number 170 comes from the Minister of Justice, from the Conservative government. He gave the committee that number.

I know the hon. member for Niagara Falls quite well, and I know him to be a very honourable man. Therefore, when he said that it happened 170 times, I believe him, quite frankly. Albeit, there may have been some confusion around some different thing, and there were issues around this happening. However, we need a process that actually works, and that is what this debate is about.

We want the bill to go to committee to be studied in an appropriate way. If changes need to be made to it, which we think there should be, then those changes will be made. Indeed, it will come back as better legislation. If not, I guess we will vote and figure out where it goes. Ultimately, it is about trying to work the legislation.

I hope my friends on the other side would see this in the sense that we should study the bill and make it better. At the end of the day, we are entrusted to make better legislation. When we say that we want the bill to go to committee to look at it, debate it, have witnesses and propose amendments to make it better legislation, surely the government wants us to do that.

In fact, I know it does because I heard the Prime Minister say so many time since I came to this place in 2008. I am paraphrasing but the Prime Minister would look across the way to us and say “give us your good ideas”. Well, we are going to give our good ideas. The Prime Minister asked for them and we are about to give them. Hopefully the Conservatives will see they are good ideas and accept them.