Malcolm Allen

[June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest as my hon. colleague went through the chronology. She very accurately job laid out the events over the last number of years. She was accurate about the fact that there are a great many members on this side of the House who probably do not remember the strike of 1997, which is a good thing. It actually livens this place and brings a breath of fresh air to this Parliament and the country.

After very accurately laying out the chronology, she switched to the second part of her presentation and continually referred to “the strike”. I would remind my hon. colleague that this is no longer a strike; indeed it is a lockout. The employer, not the union or its workers, but the employer has decided to terminate all of the business of Canada Post across the country because it has locked out all of its employees.

Partway through the rotation strikes, the postal union said to the employer that this was going to take a long time. The union leaders said that because, as the member has outlined, it has a history of taking a long time to get to an agreement. We saw that at Vale Inco in Sudbury where it took over 14 months.

I would say to my hon. colleague that if the government had taken the advice of the union leadership who said it would return to work and just go through the bargaining process and leave the agreement in place, the person the member talked about would be going to the wedding in Mexico and small businesses would be getting their transactions done. Canada Post should have been ordered by the minister to adhere to what the union wants, let the workers go back to work and get back to the bargaining table.

[Business of Supply, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague's comments in reference to my party and some of the things we had done.

I am not sure what she has against lowering the small business tax from 11% to 9%. She talked eloquently about the reduction from 12% to 11%, which is 1% for small and medium-sized business and which we all agree is the engine of this economy. Yet the government is willing to give 5%, 6% and 7% to large business that by all accounts do not create any jobs.

In fact, in my municipality, large businesses take the jobs elsewhere. John Deere is a prime example. It received the tax cut from this level of government and it went to Mexico. Henniges is going to Mexico. I am glad the government gave that corporation a break. I just wish it had created jobs in my community.

Then again, there was the collusion between the current government and the last government. When it came to the $57 billion in the EI account that the last government pilfered, it took the last remaining $2 billion. Then we asked that it be put it back, it was just simply washed off the board.

What is the intent of the government? It is to raise EI. So for those workers who get the one-year holiday, they have the rest of their life to continue to pay higher EI, courtesy of the Conservative government, to get less benefit.

I can see the economic action plan is not working for workers, Canadians or families. Indeed, what we are seeing is somebody is getting the money and somebody is getting the shaft.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, because poppies are manufactured in Toronto, Ontario, the HST applies. When the parliamentary secretary talked about the removal of all taxes, what I heard from the government side is that it was only responsible for the GST.

I am hopeful that when the government says “all”, it has struck a deal that says that the HST will not apply because poppies happen to be manufactured here. If they were manufactured somewhere else where there is no HST, it would only be that. However, that is really my hope because I wanted to see it at zero when it introduced that bill and I know the government wants to see it as zero as well.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we have clearly said that we will send the bill to committee. I have said to my friends in the government that they have an opportunity at committee to indeed amend the bill and do what the title says, support vulnerable seniors.

The bill will help a bit, but it will still leave seniors vulnerable. I am suggesting to government members, since committee is where we can modify, change, amend, make better, that they should do what they want to do and that is to support all seniors whom they call vulnerable. When the bill comes back, they can say they no longer have to worry about it because there are no more vulnerable seniors. They can actually protect and support them, and raise them all up, and they will not have another vulnerable senior.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, far be it for me to try to put things in chronological order, but it seems to me the budget was not before us on that particular day; it was an absolutely different piece of legislation. We did not get to the budget. The government did not fall on the budget, but on a separate motion.

As much as we can roll back the clock to March and ask what would have happened if that had been different, my hon. colleague, whom I am getting to know very well, would not be here if we had not had an election; it would have been someone else sitting there.

We were not the official opposition at the time. Another party was the official opposition. We are now the official opposition and we will do our due diligence.

Clearly, if we had listened to the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, we would have had cheques for seniors in this country last July, not this July.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate.

As this is the first time I rise in the House, I will take this opportunity to thank the great folks of the Welland riding, which of course is a great misnomer. We know that the Welland riding includes St. Catharines, Thorold, Port Colborne and Wainfleet, as well as the great city of Welland and all those in between.

As well, I would like to thank all of those great volunteers, specifically my family who were a great help in supporting me during the election and, indeed, during the many endeavours that my family has allowed me to participate in.

I want to follow-up with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan in talking about seniors and the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He did great work in the 40th Parliament, when the House unanimously adopted a motion that talked about how we could bring all seniors across this country out of poverty.

I do not think there is a member in the House who could honestly say to themselves that they think there is a senior in this country who should live in poverty. I do not believe there is a Canadian in this country who would think that a senior should live in poverty. If we all agree that there should be no senior living in poverty in this country, then where is the will to actually lift them up?

If one asks the unemployed in Welland, as I have, or the unemployed in any riding, if they think we should lift seniors out of poverty or if they should have a job first, they would say that they want seniors out of poverty. If one asks a senior living in poverty if they think they should come out of poverty or do they think their kids or the people who live down the street should get a job, those seniors would say with all sincerity that those people should get a job. That is the remarkable character of Canadians who want to help one another.

There is a difference between a young person who is unemployed at the age of 24 and a senior who is 84. Obviously, it is age. It is the number of years they have left. The 24-year-old, judging by the lovely tables the insurance companies give us, would probably live another 60 years. The senior in poverty at 84 only has a couple of years left. Now that we have a government that says it took a step, the seniors in poverty might think that they may not have time to wait for the second step.

Why would we allow one more senior to leave us permanently who was not taken out of poverty? We owe it to them. We all stand in this place and say that we owe it to the seniors who came before us and built this great place, but those of us who are new like me and others who have been here for multi generations, we say we owe it to them and yet we cannot fulfill the promise.

One may say that we do not have the resources to do this. Seniors would understand that as they came through the Great Depression and post-World War II. They understand the sacrifices they have to make and they would continue to make them.

We all know we have the resources to lift every senior out of poverty, yet the government's recommendation in this bill is to say, “We are going to take a step”.

I implore the government to find the other shoe and take the other step. It would simply cost $400 million more, by rough estimates, to bring every single senior across the country out of poverty. What a glorious thing we could all say if every one of us stood in the House and said that we together, all 308, said that no senior should live in poverty and we accomplished it. However, what are we going to say? We are going to say, “We took a step”.

A step is not good enough. It is not good enough for the seniors in my constituency who may lose their house because they cannot pay the property taxes. They choose between rent and hydro, heat in the winter or food on their plate. What is left are the property taxes, which continually go up. If they cannot afford to pay, they will lose their house. Yet, we continually say that we took a step in the right direction.

It may well be in the right direction, but the step is not big enough, it is not long enough, and it really needs to be all of the way there.

I say to my friends on the government benches that they have an opportunity to take this bill to committee because we are going to help them get it there. This is the government's opportunity to say to all seniors in this country that we will lift them all out of poverty. We will not take a step, a half measure, but will literally lift all seniors out of poverty. That would be the success of this House in its early stages.

I heard the parliamentary secretary talk it out, saying we need to get it done by July 1 because we have to have those cheques in the mail.

If the government had listened to my good friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, it had the money last year. If we want to talk about getting it done quickly, then it should have listened to that member when he brought it forward two years ago. Seniors would be receiving the cheques today. They would all be out of poverty and we would all be proud of our accomplishments.

That is what it takes when we show initiative. That is what it takes when we mean what we say. As they say in the street, “You either walk the walk or you talk the talk.” I am afraid that my friends on the government benches are still talking the talk.

There is an opportunity here. Do not lose it. I implore the government to not lose this opportunity. The reward is greater than just simply a good piece of legislation. The reward is that every time we walk down the street and we see seniors that we do not know, we can look them in the eye and without opening our mouths or moving our lips our minds can say that we were part of that House that lifted all of those seniors out of poverty.

Just think for a moment how joyous a thought we would have when we walk past those seniors and we once again see the light in their eyes brighten rather than that dullness that we see today because they do not know where their next meal will come from or whether they can keep their home or buy a small present for their grandson or granddaughter because they live in poverty. Think of the light we can put back on the faces of those seniors.

My colleagues, that alone is worth $400 million. That alone is worth it and we have the wherewithal to do it from a resource perspective. We have the ability to do that. We have an obligation to do it. We owe that obligation to them and we ought to fulfill that obligation as our duty as MPs to all Canadians across this country.

There is an opportunity, my friends on the government benches, to do right by seniors. I ask the government to amend its implementation legislation when it comes to second reading and lift all seniors out of poverty.

When the parliamentary secretary talked about poppies and wreaths, I was absolutely thrilled to hear her do that. Let me just say that in 2009 I actually presented a private member's bill that said that is what we should do. I am glad to see that the government is finally following through on that. Albeit the bill got lost because we dissolved Parliament and we did not get to it. I am not ungrateful from the perspective that it will happen, except we could have done it last year. We could have passed that bill. I was happy to let the government move it forward if it wanted. Therefore, I am pleased to see that, indeed, we will do what is right.

I want to thank Mr. Hank Nikitczuk, a member of Branch 4 in Welland. At that time we only paid GST on the poppies. By the way, all poppies are made in Toronto. They are actually not made across this country. So are the poppy wreaths. It was Mr. Hank Nikitczuk who brought the idea to me. He said, “Do you know we pay GST on poppies?” At the time I thought it could not be so. How could we possibly charge tax on poppies when they are being sold to raise money for veterans? It turned out to be so. When I actually informed the government that it was so, it told me it was not so until it actually did its own research and figured out that it was so. Of course, by the time it came to the realization that it was the case we had the HST. Therefore, not only did we have the GST, we also ended up with the HST.

I have a question that is somewhat rhetorical and I will ensure that it gets asked at committee. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that all tax will come off for poppies and poppy wreaths. When she says that what I am hoping is that it will be the HST. In response to questions from us, I have heard that the HST does not belong to the government any more as it is provincial. Therefore, I hope that when the parliamentary secretary said that all taxes would come off poppy wreaths and poppies, what that really meant was the HST and that all of the money will go back to the veterans.

Let me just end with EI. The EI provisions that allow the premiums to go up will outpace the amount of benefits. In the province of Ontario, 44% of claimants actually get benefits. These are the folks that we represent. That is a crime. They need and deserve benefits like everyone else across this country. That rate must go up if indeed they will be paying more.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, actually, on page 110 we see $9 million and $8 million, which do not quite add up to $100 million.

The government does not get it. This is about the safety of the food that Canadians put on their families plates.

The results are in: CFIA is underfunded and we need more inspectors.

The Conservatives are failing. They brag about putting new money in the budget but they are actually taking it out.

When will the government stop playing shell games and making semantic arguments and get to the truly important work of ensuring food is safe for all Canadians?

[Food Safety, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this story before. The government promises $100 million over five years for food safety, yet the budget delivers $9 million in the first year, $8 million in the second year and, of course, nothing after that.

In 2009 the government promised to fix food inspection in this country, yet here we are again with the same old promises. Why should Canadians trust the Conservatives now?

Will the minister commit to increasing and accelerating the funding in the first two years to ensure that food safety is safe for all Canadians?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 25th, 2011]

With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs programs: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated for the program on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (b) what was the total number of student summer jobs created on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (c) what was the total number of contracts awarded on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (d) what was the average wage paid per year from 2006 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province and territory; (e) what was the average length of the contracts from 2006 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province and territory; and (f) what was the total number of hours of work per year from 2006 to 2011 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 25th, 2011]

With regard to the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to the fund during fiscal year 2009-2010; (b) which departments contributed to the fund and how much money was contributed by each department; (c) what projects were supported by the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and what is the total cost of each project; (d) which companies were awarded contracts and was a procurement process in place; (e) which facilities used by the G8 leaders were sponsored by the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund; and (f) which municipalities were awarded contracts or received funding from the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and how much did they receive?