Malcolm Allen

[International Trade, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me help the Prime Minister. As an auto worker for 32 years, there is no Auto Pact, and it was not this side that tore it up.

[Canadian Wheat Board, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the reality about the appointed directors is that it is the minister's responsibility to appoint them and if he wants the ad down, he should unappoint those directors who put the ad up in the first place.

Since the Wheat Board was dismantled, the Conservative appointees are creating instability and confusion for many farmers. We have heard from a lot of them. In fact, they actually alienated prairie farmers across the country. Instead of listening to farmers, Conservatives would rather play ideological games, and we see that with this ad.

With an ongoing hog crisis and cuts to risk management programs, it is a shame the Conservatives really are not listening to all prairie farmers. Why are they taking hard-working farmers for granted?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the food packaging regulations snuck into last fall's omnibus budget bill caught an entire industry off guard. Newly released government documents confirm that no studies were completed before announcing these changes. We also know there were no public consultations and no industry input. Thousands of good quality jobs are at risk yet the minister has not done a single market impact study.

Why is the minister determined to destroy southern Ontario's food packaging industry and ship thousands of jobs to the United States?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to the Budget 2012 commitment to “repeal regulations related to container standards” on various foods: (a) what market impact studies were completed at the time of this commitment and what were those projected impacts; (b) what were the projected impacts on consumers from this commitment; (c) what were the projected impacts on farmers from this commitments; (d) what were the projected impacts on Canadian food processers affected by this commitment; (e) how many hours have been spent, broken down by month, since January 1, 2011, tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging; and (f) what has been the cost to the government, broken down by month since January 1, 2011, of tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging?

[Income Tax Act, December 11th, 2012]

Voluntary as well, Mr. Speaker.

The Rand formula will probably be the next point of attack, as it gives them certain rights. It was government that actually gave unions those rights; unions did not make them up but were given them by acts of provincial legislatures and Parliament. If my colleagues do not like the fact that the unions were there, then I guess they do not like the fact the government gave them those rights. I suppose that would lead one to say exactly what I said earlier, that we have an open, transparent and democratic system on the union side and we have a government that thinks they should not have those rights and that we should simply take them away. Therefore, this becomes an undemocratic piece. I guess the Conservatives do not believe in the legitimacy of government actually giving that right in the first place when it comes to the Rand formula.

Ultimately, this legislation is wrong-headed. As Carpenters' Local Union 27 said in Toronto, “This bill is about an attack on unions”. It is going to cost money to do this even though my friend and colleague has suggested perhaps it would not. He now knows that it will, and it will cost much more than he ever thought. The unions know that. The Conservative government knows that and its members ought to simply just sit down when it comes time to call it.

This is a wrong-headed piece of legislation.

[Income Tax Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate and perhaps go back for a second or two and think about transparency, because the bill talks about unions and transparency. Let me give a couple of examples of transparency inside a union. As I said, I can do that from personal experience because I spent three terms-plus as the financial officer in one of the largest local unions in the country. I actually know of what I speak because I used to have to do it.

Here is a bit about transparency. I was empowered to spend up to $100 if I asked the executive board. However, on the government side, the Conservatives have an agreement called a FIPA with China. There is no transparency with that. They are not talking to us about it in the House of Commons, let alone to the Canadian public. We have on the union side, transparency, and on the government side, no transparency.

Then if we wanted to spend more than $100, I had to go to the executive board and ask, get approval and then take it to our membership's monthly meeting and say to the members what we would like to do, how much we would like to spend and ask if they would approve it and accept their judgment. Again, that is openness and transparency. What do we have on the other side? We have the Nexen deal from last Friday. Yes, we kind of did know and we kind of did not, but only under exceptional circumstances might we do it again. We asked the Prime Minister what those exceptional circumstances were. The reply was that the government could not tell us that yet.

On our side, we have the union movement, openness, transparency. On the government, side there is hiding, secretive, opaque, “let us not tell them, why should we ever tell the Canadian public anything”. Yet on the union side, we tell our members everything. Not only because we have an obligation through our constitutions, but we have an obligation to consult with them because we believe that consultation process should be upheld. We believe in openness and transparency with them, much to the chagrin of the member who brought the bill forward.

I am not so sure he ever belonged to a union. Perhaps he should have talked to those of us who were in the union movement first and we could have helped him explain that. Then again, he would not have been in the pockets of the Merit group. In which case when we talk to local 27 carpenters' union in Toronto about how they will then have to open up their collective agreements, the Conservatives always talk about not taking sides in the commercial environment.

The Merit group, a non-union contractor in the province of Ontario and across the country, can find out what that carpenters' local union, local 27 in Toronto, might be trying to do as it bids on work because of its ability to see inside the collective agreements. What benefit would that be to them? Perhaps they could undercut them. Perhaps they could ensure they did not certify a union if there were a union attempt. Again, local 27 is geared by openness and transparency for its membership and we have a government that is not.

I have a final piece of openness and transparency when it comes to the finances of unions. The financial officers are ultimately held responsible for the finances of the union. I know that all too well, having been one for a long period of time, elected in three consecutive terms. It says something about how I told my members what I did with their money, as I was obligated to do, and fulfilled the obligation. They elected me three times so I guess I fulfilled the obligation. That becomes the other open and transparent piece: their right to remove me as they see fit. In fact, they can recall me. My friends across the way at one time believed in that, but that has gone away. We still believe in it. Inside many unions across the country, they can still recall that individual elected official if they choose, but they certainly can replace that person at an election. Again, it is open, transparent and democratic.

Then there is CETA, the greatest hidden piece of free trade agreement with one of the largest economic blocks in the world, and not one single solitary syllable has been mentioned in the House from the Conservative government to anyone else, not even to their own backbenchers.

What do we have on this side? A union that is open, transparent, democratic. On that side it is opaque, undemocratic, collusive almost and certainly not forthcoming when it comes to information.

Perhaps they will finally bring their information forward about the FIPA with China, about the Nexen deal and about the CETA agreement. Perhaps we would then finally have that sense of openness.

Quite a few of my colleagues on this side of the House are from the union movement, as one the members mentioned before. We are proud to say that and happy to stand up and tell members about it, because at the end of the day, the only target is clearly the union movement. It is the only one that has been targeted in this legislation.

If the member wanted openness and transparency, then he would have lumped in all of the other great bastions of democracy, the C.D. Howe Institute, the taxpayers' federation, the National Citizens Coalition, all of those great groups that are transparent and open and tell us all of the things they do.

[Income Tax Act, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me help my friends learn a little about how this actually works, as I am probably the only member of the House who was the financial officer for a large union. I spent eight years of my life doing that.

This whole idea that the government is suggesting, that there is this lack of transparency and that unions do not tell anyone anything and all of this information is hidden away from the membership somewhere in a secret vault, is absolute hokum. I will explain how this works, especially to my friend who lives nearby.

Any expenditure beyond $100 needs ratification not only from the executive board but from the membership. That is right, all of the membership gets to vote on any expenditure beyond $100. The limit of any local union, and any union pretty much across the country, to expense money on behalf of its members is only up to $100.

When is that information reported to union members? It is reported monthly. This information is related both verbally and in writing. In my case, that is exactly what I did.

There is that dreaded audit that all of us fear on our income tax, but unions audit themselves continuously. These audits are conducted by outside auditors. In my case, KPMG used to do the audit. At one time, KPMG did an audit every six months because the organization was so large, but it eventually became a yearly audit.

Who else comes to visit unions? The folks who collect provincial taxes come to visit. They want to find out if the union has a hall that it rents out because taxes have to be paid on those things. They come and check the taxes as well.

Therefore, this idea that somehow there are no checks and balances in the system, that somehow the membership does not understand where the money is spent, or somehow we just collect the money, give it away and never tell anybody who we give it to is just false. That is not true. The membership always knows exactly where its money is spent. Members have the absolute democratic right when they do not like a particular expenditure to say no to it. They also have the right not to vote for a person the next time.

I can tell my colleagues across the way that I guess we did this so well, at least in my union, that I was elected three times as the financial officer. The members had no fear about how their money was expensed because they were always told how their money was expensed. In fact, we were more open than this government when it comes to the budget. The government had an omnibus budget bill that had less amendments to it than Bill C-377. That bill was so poorly put together in the first place that the Conservatives almost had to rewrite it to make it conform and be palatable to someone, but I have no idea who.

Clearly, this is not a bill that is supposed to be informative for union members or the general public. This is simply a bill that attacks unions across this country. There is no need for it and it should not be passed. It should just die on the order paper—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for Bill S-11, the food safety bill. My recommendation to my caucus was to vote for second reading and send it to committee to amend it because the government's sense was for us to bring it our ideas. That is exactly what I did. We voted to send it to committee.

It is not so much the process. It is about looking at individual legislation on the merits of the legislation. We do not vote because of a process; we vote on what the legislation is about. If the legislation in our view deserves to go to committee, then we will vote to do that. Bill S-11 is a prime example of that. That is exactly what we did, but then we found out what the process was, and it was “no”.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question, but that is okay. I respect my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre. He served our country for a long time and we are extremely proud of his service and thank him for it. I to want to say it publicly again.

The member is right. What I said previously was that the committee had the amendments. It may not have accepted everything and that is fair. Ultimately it amounts to the fact that there was an acceptance of a certain pace of a go. If the member is telling us that the Conservatives are studying the additional pieces, then why would they rush to bring this? Why not wait until they study the other 36 pieces, recognizing that they are complex and need further study? If it is too long, then they cannot wait.

Clearly now that we know the government is studying some things, what is that timeline? I wonder if the minister could tell us that at some point. Is it 30 of 90 days from now? Is it 3 years from now? If the Conservatives are studying them with the prospect of enhancing the bill with those additional pieces, perhaps they should have helped us with that information and perhaps they could have been in the bill in a month or two, or less.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to address you directly, sir. I know that you would never take the opportunity to single me out. You do as you have always done and remind us all to participate in a way that we know we should. I appreciate that reminder.

Clearly, when we look at Bill C-15, we see it is about bringing justice to our brave men and women in the military for whom all in this House have the greatest of admiration and respect. I genuinely believe that. We, as a Parliament, ask them to serve Canada and they come to us voluntarily to serve.

As parliamentarians, we can disagree on what the missions are, but when a decision is ultimately taken in this House, members of the Canadian Forces serve this House and Canadians in general. This legislation should have been about ensuring that their justice system is as robust and as good as we can possibly make it. However, that is where we have let them down.

The reason we are bringing this to the government's attention is that we have such a high regard for the members of the military and hold them in such high esteem because of the service they give to all of us regardless of what role they take on here at home or abroad. We want them to have the most robust system of justice, which we know they deserve, and we should not provide anything less than that.

We have had reports that have been named many times, whether it be the Lamer report, the committee's report or the previous bill, which have been in this House before. We have had all of these things already, not necessarily in this session of the House, but certainly in other sessions. I was here last session of the House, and there was a bill here before that.

We have had all of that information, which has been studied to a certain degree, but where has it disappeared to? What happened to those pieces of legislation that folks agreed were good? Why would we lose those bits and pieces? Why would we not just say, yes, we disagree on certain aspects, but in the end, why would we not look at the pieces that are here?

There are concerns around the complaints commission. For example, a soldier who logs a grievance ends up in front of his or her commanding officer. That is the way the system works in this process. If one does not come out the other side of the process thinking one was treated fairly, then the system does not work.

The issue is not about the decision. Grievers can file grievances and not win, but if they think that the system works, then they just do not like the decision at the end of it, which is fair. Grievers quite often do not like the decision if they do not win. However, if a griever does not think the process is fair, then regardless of what happens in the decision, it is the process that is the annoyance.

I think we need to look at the grievance procedure and ask how we can make it a fair system. How do we make it a system so that those who have to enter it can say to themselves that the system works? They may not like the decision, but they would not complain that the system was unfair. This is much different from thinking that the reason they got a bad decision was that the process does not work, which ends up with two negatives and that just does not work for everyone involved. It does not work for the military as a whole or its sense of what it wants to do in making sure that justice seems fair. It is not a question of justice being done, but about justice seeming fair as well.

Ultimately, that is what we needed Bill C-15 to do, and it started down the path of taking it to a better place. However, the issue for me is: Why did we not go down the path a little farther? There is some suggestion that maybe it will happen later on. Why do we not do it now? If we were starting from scratch, I guess we might think this is a great start, but the problem is that we are not. We have started from other places. We could have built that into the bill, which is what we find disappointing on this side.