Malcolm Allen

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to involve myself in this debate on how we make statements, how we acquiesce to demands inside our own caucus and how we help our caucus colleagues find a way to make statements.

I can use the example of what happened just a few weeks ago when a good friend of mine, a great friend of the folks in Welland, the late Peter Kormos, passed away on a Saturday. I sent a note to my whip's office saying that I would love to do a statement on Monday to commemorate Peter's life, because he had just passed away. My colleagues were very accepting of that fact. Indeed, I ended up on the list, even though it was not my regular rotation. We have an easy schedule that allows us to do statements when we have House duty so that we are actually here, not somewhere else or engaged in a meeting, which would cause the Speaker difficulties if no one else stood. In this caucus, we give ourselves equal opportunities for statements. I can tell members that no one, since I arrived here in 2008, has ever told members of our caucus what we could or could not say in a statement. We are free to talk about constituencies or to commemorate the life of a good friend, as I did for Peter Kormos.

It is that freedom of members of Parliament that is being debated here. How do we allow all 308 of us, all members of this House, whatever number it happens to be in the future, to speak on behalf of the folks who sent us here. Ultimately, the whips did not elect us. The folks in our constituencies, whether it be the great riding of Welland, where I come from, or the wonderful community of Langley, are the folks who sent us here. Those are the folks we represent.

As the hon. House leader said, we are inside a party structure. We run on a particular platform. However, that does not diminish our role as individual MPs in a Westminster model in which the onus is on individual members to stand to speak for their constituents.

One of the things my constituents have asked me is what my role is. I tell them that part of my role is to be their voice, because they cannot all get one day in this House of Commons. It is impossible to have all the people who live in Welland come and speak to the things that are important to them.

There are standing order rules on how we should behave and use language. We all understand that. However, it really is about articulating the views of the folks who send us here and standing up for them, regardless of who they happen to be. I do not, as a member, have to agree with other members' statements, and they do not have to agree with mine. However, what we have to do, in my view, and I say this as an individual member of Parliament, as the member for Welland, not as a member of this particular caucus or party, is treat the other members with respect, even if I totally disagree with the statements they make. They were duly elected to this House. What they say matters to the constituencies they represent. Therefore, they have the absolute right to say it.

Of course, they fall within the confines of the standing orders, as I said earlier, and the Chair will call to order someone who goes beyond the bounds of the standing orders. I admit that I have seen the hon. Speaker end a statement because he felt it went beyond the bounds of the standing orders by which we guide ourselves.

If we are going to find a way to allow all of us that opportunity, then we clearly need to look at alternatives.

My friends in the Liberal Party have offered a possible solution. They have come forward with something that would be alphabetical. I have to thank the hon. member from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who said that it would be alphabetical by last name and not by riding, because I would have gone from the top of the list all the way down to W, for the riding of Welland. I appreciate his clarification.

However, it still would come around the alphabet. It would still get to me, even if I was at the bottom. If I had a last name that began with W or T, I would still be recognized.

I am sure that the intent was that the Speaker's rights would not be abrogated in terms of how the Speaker recognizes who should speak. This was meant as a convention. For each party, including the independents, who would be grouped together, the alphabet rather than the whip's list would be the convention. I do not wish to put words in my colleague's mouth, but I am sure that this is my colleague's intent.

I am sure that no one in the House would have the audacity to suggest that the Speaker is wrong. In my view, the Speaker was very eloquent the other day in his ruling. He referenced the House of Commons Practice and Procedure, Second Edition, on page 89, which refers to the freedom of speech of members. It states:

[...] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

He then went on to say, and this is where the Speaker sees he intersects with us:

The Speaker's role in safeguarding this very privilege is set out in O'Brien and Bosc at page 308. “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent...”.

I believe that the Speaker was absolutely right. He correctly pointed out that he is elected by us. We decided who would sit in the Chair as Speaker. He applies the rules we actually give him.

It is all of us as members who decide the rules we give to the Speaker. We empower the Speaker, through a democratic process, to adjudge the rules we have given him, because that is how we want this place to function. We ask the Speaker to accept the rules and to enforce them for us.

The Speaker gets a list to help him. It is a guide. He uses it quite often. All of us also recognize it is a guide. If an S. O. 31 comes to me, I stand up. Usually no one else tries to challenge me to take that spot away, and the Speaker recognizes me because I stood, as he did a moment ago.

Based on all of that, the help we provide the Speaker is important to how the House functions. It really is a piece of what we do in helping the Speaker adjudicate in the House, not with an iron hand but with a guiding hand so that we all feel that we have had an equal opportunity to speak, within the confines of the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting ready to rise to let me know that the time is up. That is one of the rules we have all come to understand. We appreciate the fact that the Speaker always makes us understand that our time is up.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention on this particular piece. However, I would remind him that we are at this point because the member for Langley put a case of privilege before the Speaker.

The member for Langley is a member on the government side, and my hon. colleague is the House leader of the government. This is about the assertion of the member for Langley, and of others, that he was being muzzled by the executive of his party, his whip. That is why we are here: to debate how we would open this up.

There is a sense that we could do it by alphabetical order, and I hear what my hon. colleague is saying about using the word “shall” in the Standing Order. I understand that language because I used to bargain collective agreements. I get the nuance of language.

However, I would ask my colleague across the way how we can undo this issue of not allowing people to get up to speak when the sole responsibility comes down to the whip, even though the Speaker said yesterday that if one stands up, one might be recognized depending on how one presents oneself. I think the hon. Speaker said that a person might be seen if he or she has captured his eye by standing up.

The issue occurs when the whip says to not get up because the member's S. O. 31 was taken away, as was the contention of the member for Langley. He was refused his spot. How do we then get this system to work so that all members have an opportunity to speak when they feel they should be speaking on behalf of their constituents on things that are of importance to them?

I wonder if my colleague could help us understand how we get to that piece, as the Speaker clearly said that we should somehow get there. I think he wants us to find a way to do that.

Whips in each party can do what they need to do to control their own members. That is for their caucus to decide. However, how do we undo all of what seems to have constrained us, other than by what my colleague just described in saying that the convention would no longer be a convention and would be an absolute? I think that is what he said.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who the alphabet favours quite well, having a last name that has the first letter of the alphabet, it would be very endearing to me to go alphabetically; I would probably get to go first. But there may be some issues of a more technical sense as to how this could be done.

The member was correct when he said that the Liberals are entitled to two spots. If the case came up where a person was going to be away and tried to switch with someone in his or her party but could not get someone, what would happen to that person's spot? Would it be lost? The Speaker, through his ruling yesterday, said that he would recognize someone who stood up. If someone in the Liberal Party was going to be absent and could not exchange with somebody else in his or her party, the spot would be vacant. If the Speaker recognized someone else who rose in the House, would the spot be lost to the Liberal Party or to another party based on spots being allocated with nine to the government side, five to us in opposition, two to the Liberal Party, and independent members getting opportunities based on how the Speaker recognizes them?

It is very much a technical piece, not an objection to it, in the sense of how we would work that through. Would a party just lose the spot if an internal change could not be made?

I look to my colleague to help me with that because it is something I am trying to figure out. If someone gives up the spot what happens? Alphabetically that individual would go back to the bottom and wait to circle back through again.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition today signed by hundreds of folks across Manitoba and primarily Saskatchewan. It talks about the shelterbelt program and how unique it is to Saskatchewan, especially, and that it needs to be protected. They call upon the minister to reverse the decision to do away with the shelterbelt and to keep it in place to help all of those farmers and all of those great Saskatchewan residents by making sure that this program continues.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, during my tour of southern Ontario I heard first-hand what will happen if the Conservatives' reckless container size regulations go forward. Mayors, food processors and farmers all told me the same thing: communities will be hurt, farmers will be severely impacted and thousands of jobs will be lost. However, the Minister of Agriculture has not done a single impact study or carried out any consultation to support these changes.

Will the minister commit today to stop targeting these rural communities and immediately withdraw his policy—yes or no?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this debate. I want to say to my colleagues across the way that I have never hugged a thug or kissed a terrorist in my entire life, and I do not intend to start today, nor will I be doing it tomorrow. That is not in our vernacular, nor is it our propensity to suggest we start doing that.

The law is there for a reason and one reason alone, and that is to protect the innocent and ensure it captures those who perpetrate crimes against us. In fact, we can see the RCMP out there talking about their investigation and the folks they have arrested today in connection with what may well have been a terrorist attempt, or at least the planning thereof.

I say “well done” to those police agencies who took it upon themselves and did the hard work that they did. Yet, they did not have the provisions that the Conservatives seem to want to bring back in. It seems they did their job adequately because they actually thwarted what could have been a catastrophe. There may have been carnage or death, with injuries and maiming of innocent civilians across this country. We congratulate the police forces for the work they have done.

We understand terrorism is within our midst. We have seen it before. We have arrested people in this country. We have seen the unnecessary acts of violence against civilians throughout the world. However, when talking about this country, we talk about how we safeguard those citizens. At the same time, how do we also allow citizens to be free? It is a balancing act. There is no question that it is about how we ensure safety and thwart terrorists from acting, but also how we allow Canadians to enjoy the civil liberties they expect and have come to understand.

The other day I remember my colleagues complaining about the failure to celebrate the Charter. Yet here they are today suggesting they should break the Charter that they wanted to celebrate last week. That is perhaps why the members on the other side decided there would be no celebration, since their Liberal colleagues who were going to join them, and will join them when they vote on this, were actually going to abrogate the Charter under section 9. Why celebrate something they are going to rip up and throw away anyway? It shows their duplicity when it comes to what they intend to do with that.

Clearly, this is about the fact that we do have the rule of law. There are numerous lawyers in this place who understand it much better than I, since I am not a lawyer. However, as a citizen, I do expect even-handed treatment under the law. Regardless of what the charges would be, if I were to ever be charged, I expect that understanding and I expect that type of treatment.

Canadians expect us to find the balance in protecting them, as well as ensuring that their civil liberties are protected, not abrogated, under the Charter. If we cannot find a way to do that, then what are we doing? We are saying to Canadians that we do not know how to balance that for them. That is a failure on the part of this House, not on Canadians who are looking to us to find a way to do this.

I would say to my colleagues across the way that one ought to rethink how one does this, so we can find that balance for Canadians.

[Food Safety, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, brought in major changes to food inspection. Thousands of new import licences will be required and that is going to require more resources, not less. The minister promised that Bill S-11 would give the CFIA more tools and more resources. The minister oversaw two of the largest recalls in Canadian history and now he is planning to cut CFIA's budget and fire hundreds of employees.

Why is the minister telling Canadians one thing and doing the exact opposite?

[Food Safety, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in typical Conservative fashion, spending plans for food safety were quietly released on the last day of sitting before the Easter break. Conservatives are cutting Canada's food safety program by $38 million, eliminating more than 300 full-time staff. No wonder they wanted to hide the report.

New legislation at improving food safety will require resources to make it work. How can the minister defend these reckless cuts to food safety, and why did he hide these cuts from Canadians?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food provide a clear timeline for the publication of the proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food make the current draft of proposed regulatory changes available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and (c) will the Canadian Food Inspection Agency make submissions received during the initial public consultation period on this file, held in 2006, available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to amendments to the Canada Grains Act in Budget 2012: (a) what market impact studies were completed prior to making these amendments and what were the projected impacts; and (b) what were the projected impacts on farmers from these amendments?