Malcolm Allen

[Request for Emergency Debate, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me today on what is in Ontario, Quebec and Eastern Canada an absolute emergency, and that is the drought we have seen for those of us who live in Ontario, Quebec and eastward into the Atlantic provinces, albeit not in every specific part of those provinces.

My home province and constituency saw record high temperatures in what should have been wintertime that caused the budding of apple trees, then they froze and 80% of that crop was lost. That was followed with a drought for the remaining 20% of the crop. That crop is now about half the size of what it should be. Not only did apple producers lose 80% of their crop, but the last 20% that managed to make its way through were about half the size.

One can only imagine the cause of this drought, but the effect on primary producers and farmers has been absolutely devastating.

Hay prices have tripled from what they were one year ago. A round bale of hay, a large bale, which was $30 last year is now $100. Farmers have basically liquidated their livestock because they can no longer afford to feed them or they can no longer find feed in eastern Canada for them. This is a catastrophe that we need to deal with on an immediate basis.

I was with my colleagues in Timiskaming just this summer talking to a blueberry producer. This producer tried to harvest his blueberries but they were all so small they literally fell through the screening to the ground and he harvested not one. His colleague just to the west of him reduced his herd by two-thirds because he could not find feed.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is holding fundraisers for farmers to buy feed because they cannot afford it. In this day and age why are we holding a fundraiser like it is a bake sale on a Sunday afternoon at church for primary producers who find themselves in such a predicament through no fault of their own because of a drought that we all recognize has been of a catastrophic nature?

We need to have a discussion in the House so we can find a way to remedy these problems in an expeditious way. We know the programs exist, albeit my friend the Minister of Agriculture has reduced those programs going forward. We need to find a way to remedy the situation now, not some time in the future.

I would appreciate your consideration of that, Mr. Speaker.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, severe moisture shortages coupled with record high temperatures have left many farmers in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada in dire straights.

The Conservative government's response is to offer little support and to ignore farmers altogether. For example, the recently announced livestock deferral program does not even cover all the drought affected areas and it does absolutely nothing for the horticultural growers.

When will the government finally come forward with a balanced and robust response to this devastating drought?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention. He quoted statistics from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, saying we cannot afford even a 1% increase in the Canada pension plan. However, part of the spin that the Conservative government has given us around pooled registered pension plans is this whole idea that employers welcome it with open arms, as if somehow the employers would actually, perhaps, contribute something. However, he just articulated that small and medium-sized businesses are saying, “Wait a minute; we can't afford even 1% in CPP”.

I wonder where indeed this idea comes from, from the government, that somehow small and medium-sized enterprises, if we had this plan, would contribute to this one versus the Canada pension plan. If they cannot afford that one, how could they afford the other? It seems quite an articulate balancing act, almost the equivalent of Mr. Wallenda walking on that tightrope across Niagara Falls, as to how exactly he is going to do that.

I know the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook and I will probably be in attendance when that happens, Niagara being such a great place.

Clearly, employees can actually have a savings plan through an RRSP through their employer if their employer wants to do that. This is nothing more than a glorified registered pension plan with another name, with this whole idea of “You're in, unless you want out”.

It reminds me of the negative billing we did away with when it came to cable TV; we would now take that option and put it back in.

[Employment Insurance, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if we actually had them come before the agriculture committee we could actually have ask them some question, but then, of course, they did not actually come before the committee, did they?

This is what the chair of the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council told the committee because he had to go before a different committee. He said, “We will have a net negative effect on agriculture”. This is an employer who is looking for employees. It represents over 300,000 employees across the agricultural sector, the manufacturing sector and the food processing sector and it says that there is a major issue.

When will the Conservatives stop rushing this bill, take a step back, take a deep breath, consult farmers, consult the industry and find a way to make this work properly?

[Employment Insurance, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, these EI changes will have sweeping impacts on the agriculture sector.

The Conservatives are attacking communities that rely on seasonal industries, like fruit growers, horticultural growers, beef farmers, the fisheries and many more, and none of these farmers were consulted. When the minister makes major policy announcements without any consultations, she puts those very businesses and farms at risk.

Why did the Conservatives choose to ignore farmers and why did they choose not to consult with those businesses that will be greatly affected?

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the agriculture committee, Canada's honey and honeybee producers testified first-hand their gut-wrenching accounts about devastating losses to their industry. Some witnesses reported up to 85% of colony losses. This could lead to a crisis in agriculture production in areas of this country. They also highlighted the lack of support programs for this disaster.

What support is the government providing to these producers to ensure that they will make it through this crisis, and will it take action immediately?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague from Nova Scotia, where the minimum wage is $10 an hour. Is he suggesting maybe most folks in Nova Scotia are really happy working for $10 an hour? It seems that is what he is suggesting.

Clearly the reason Canadians are afraid has nothing to do with New Democrats making them afraid. It is the government that is making them afraid, because it does not want to come clean. It actually does not want even to tell us what the definition is of suitable employment, job search and all of those things. If it did, it would have put that in the bill. Instead the Conservatives do it by stealth. They send a minister out to suggest that maybe it is this and another minister out to suggest that maybe it is that.

Finally they come clean and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development makes an announcement. The next day the Minister of Finance says to the premiers of Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador that they can talk about that.

Who is confused? People on EI are confused, and they are confused because the government is still confused. It still does not know what it wants to do and still has not figured out exactly the definition of terms respecting the unemployed because it does not care about the unemployed, quite frankly.

What it really is about is punishing workers in our country. We have 1.4 million people unemployed, and the Conservatives talk about 100,000 available jobs. That is marvellous. Their arithmetic is faulty.

This is about having a sense of compassion for those who are unemployed and to trying to help them, not punish them.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to collective organizations, one of the greatest collective pools we know is employment insurance. People put money in to ensure that those who are marginalized by unemployment are helped out. Those who continue to work continue to pay in. We do not pay in, and that is an error in the government's choices. We should actually pay into employment insurance. We never collect it, but we should at least pay it. We should lead by example. That is a collective organization that actually pools money together. Never mind the pooled registered pension plan that the Conservatives have dreamed up; let us talk about the pooled savings plan that helps people in case they become unemployed. That is a true collective movement. It is about helping people. People pay into it while they are working and are willing to let other people draw the benefits when those people are not working. That is a true collective movement in which the members look after one another, rather than the sense of showing someone the door, wishing him the best and hoping it does not rain because he does not have an umbrella.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Malpeque for the work he has done on behalf of farmers. We sat together on the agriculture committee in the last Parliament.

He is correct when it comes to the sense of a collective, where folks want to work together for something, as they did with the Canadian Wheat Board. As I have said many times in this House, it was for those who belonged to the Canadian Wheat Board to decide whether they wanted it to continue, and the government abrogated their right. They should have been allowed to decide whether they wanted to keep it and then we would abide by their decision as it was in the act, rather than simply change the act.

It seems the government takes a dim view to any sort of collective movement and does not like it. I would say to the Conservatives that there is no shame in being part of a collective because it is of one's free will to belong. If that is my choice, I ought to be allowed. There ought not to be impediments. It is my choice to be part of that free association of a collective movement. The government ought to stay out of my way and allow me to do that, not throw up roadblocks, not be detrimental in its attitude toward—

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great words about the co-operative movement, whether it be credit unions, co-ops in the agriculture sector, or housing.

It reminds me of a family that came here in the early 1960s to work in the shipyards of this great country. The family wanted to buy a house. The parents went to the bank to borrow money. It was a household where one of the parents had worked for a couple of years and had a work history in this country, albeit a short one, because the family had only been here about two years. The parents wanted to buy a house. That house was worth $15,000. Today $15,000 would not get anyone a garage, never mind a house. The family was looking to put down roots. The parents had the ability to pay the mortgage and had a small down payment. They wanted to settle in the community and provide a home for their children.

Those parents went from bank to bank asking for a loan and they were denied every single solitary time, even though there was a work history and an income stream. The head of the family, who was a man, was working in the auto sector at GM and was one of the highest paid factory workers in the Niagara region at the time. He was a skilled tradesperson making a very good wage and working overtime. One day while that man was at work, a gentleman came around and asked him if he would like to be a member of the credit union. The man said it sounded great to him. He had come from a place where the co-op movement was very successful. It was an enlightened movement which a lot of folks participated in, whether it was the co-operative store where people bought their groceries or other co-operative movements to which the man had belonged.

The gentleman signed him up to the credit union and said if the man needed anything, he should come to see him. The man said he wanted to get a mortgage so he could buy a house for his family. In those days that gentlemen would have been called the credit union man. Credit union men signed people up at their places of work. The credit union man would be someone people worked with. The credit union men were workmates of the people who were asked if they would like to join and be part of the co-operative movement.

The man looking for the loan said yes. The credit union man said he would make sure he got an appointment to apply for a mortgage. The man and his wife went to the credit union, asked for a mortgage to buy a small home and the credit union said yes.

Who were those folks? They were my father and mother. They lived in 12 different places. They rented place after place after place and dragged five kids behind them, because they could not find a place to live and the banks would not give them a mortgage, but the credit union would. My father to his dying day said to trust the credit union and the co-operative movement and be leery of the banks. I was then and I am now.

It is not to say that I do not have a bank account. I do, but I have done most of my life's financial work--if I can call it work; it is usually debt when one has children, a mortgage and car loans. Nonetheless, I belong to the credit union. It is a great institution that is going to lose the ability to do that great work because of such a shortsighted government. One would think the government was being asked for hundreds of millions of dollars, when indeed it is a pittance.

I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the CDI. I asked why the government was not going to fund it. Let me read from the minister's response. It stated, “To address the need to reduce the federal deficit, over the past year the Government conducted a comprehensive”--comprehensive, the minister said--“review of direct program spending by federal departments and agencies. As a result...the Co-operative Development Initiative is being discontinued”. That letter to me was signed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

What comprehensive review? We are actually now being asked to do a comprehensive review of the CDI. I have to thank my colleagues in the Liberal Party for doing that.

I congratulate the member for Malpeque for standing up for co-ops. I know they play an important role in Prince Edward Island and in rural parts right across this great country. When we go to the rural parts of this country, which I know my friend from Malpeque has done, as I have done, when we go to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, to the northern parts of this country, whether it be in Ontario or in Quebec, and look at what institutions are in those small towns, it is the co-operatives, not the big banks. In the case of a financial institution, it is usually a small credit union. There might be only a couple of folks looking after the place, but I will guarantee that when people walk through that door, they will ask how they are doing and call them by their first name. It is about that connectedness to community.

When people are members of a co-operative, whether it be a credit union, co-operative housing, or whatever it happens to be, they own it. It is not owned by some board members and shareholders somewhere who are looking to extract profit after profit. The profit comes back to the members. What I think is the remarkable thing about co-ops is that the members get to decide what to do with it. They can get the share value back, which happens with many credit unions, or they can reinvest it, as in co-op housing. With co-op housing, if the members decide they need to fix something, they collectively come together and make a decision. There is no one outside who is worried about making an additional five bucks off the backs of folks. They can take that extra $5 and decide to do something with it, which would probably help a lot more folks than just someone putting it in his pocket.

What a remarkable thing. It is absolutely fascinating that folks would want to come together to help one another. Imagine that. We do not hear much of that from the other side. It is a dog-eat-dog world on the other side, it seems, instead of this sense of collectivism.

When we look at collective attributes across this country, one need look no further than the Canadian Wheat Board. What did we see the other side do? The government axed it.

I find it hugely ironic that in the very year which the UN has declared is the International Year of Cooperatives, the minister thinks it is a wonderful thing, makes a great proclamation, makes a nice speech about it, and his very first act around the co-operative movement is to take away the money that helps build it. The minister may want to think about whether he wants to retract what he said about the co-operative movement in the International Year of Cooperatives. Clearly, actions speak louder than words, as one is told. If the action is that the government is going to de-fund it, then perhaps the words were meaningless.

When we look at the co-operative movement, we have to ask ourselves, do we really believe in entrepreneurs? Are entrepreneurs individuals working only on behalf of themselves or their families, perhaps, if we want to use that model? Or can entrepreneurs come together as a collective group and actually work on behalf of each other so that they all benefit?

I would argue they can. I would argue that entrepreneurs are not always single-minded in the sense that they want only themselves to get ahead, through their efforts, whatever those efforts happen to be, whatever endeavour they may take up. In the co-operative movement, there are folks who come together who are entrepreneurial in spirit and in how they want to do things and run a business, but they want to do it as a collective and are happy to share the rewards with others who come together with them to work.

One should celebrate that. One should look at that and see it as another model for economic development. It is important to this country and has a uniqueness in rural Canada that has not gone away. It has taken its lumps and bumps along the way. We have seen a lot of things in rural Canada, in northern Canada and out west on the Prairies. We have seen the demise of some, but we have also seen the growth of many others.

My colleague mentioned some numbers. In this country, there are 18 million members who belong to co-operatives. Nine thousand co-operatives are in housing. Some 2,200 housing co-operatives are home to about 250,000 individuals. There are 1,300 agricultural co-ops.

We talk a lot about agriculture in this House and it seems to me it is a movement that is critical for agriculture producers. Many agriculture producers I have spoken to on the Prairies greatly appreciate those co-operatives. It seems to me that the government ought to rethink. Perhaps we will get a recommendation if we do pass this motion, and I hope we do because we certainly support it. If the committee comes up with a suggestion to reinstate the funding, I would suggest to my colleagues across the way that maybe that is what they ought to do, at least for those in the agriculture sector, where 1,300 agriculture co-operatives do great work on behalf of farmers and those communities.

I encourage the other side to support this motion. Let us get a committee to consider this matter. We would like to see some other things done. Let us see if we cannot restore the funding and the momentum for co-operatives across this country. Let us show them that we believe in them and that we want to help them build because they are important to our communities and to individuals.