Mike Allen

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his comments, which I really appreciate, and his work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to pick up on one of the comments that he made with respect to the refund and the EI. I mentioned before that 60% of the funds that are paid into the EI fund are paid by employers, and the refund is going directly to them.

I know that we had a comment in our committee when we talked about the CFIB. We seem to always to use the CFIB when it is convenient for us, and the other party uses it when it is convenient for them. The CFIB has clearly stated that it sees this as creating 25,000 person-years of employment. I hope that I did not hear the member say that he is discounting the CFIB's analysis on this refund.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote into the record from Mr. Greg Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer, when he said this at our finance committee meeting with respect to the changes to public health:

The changes proposed do not diminish the role of the chief public health officer, they enhance it. In essence, they associate internal management and capacity issues with a dedicated agency head and direction on public health issues with the CPHO. It makes good management sense and good public health sense to make these changes.

It's a structure that works well for many provinces and territories, and for countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia. In fact, we've been moving this way as an agency for some time now and have, in fact, adopted this type of management structure since 2012.

The member is saying that the government is not listening. Does he not listen to Mr. Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question with respect to the bill's amending the position of Chief Public Health Officer.

At committee, the Chief Public Health Officer himself came in and said that the amendment in this bill would codify the way that the public health office has been operating since 2012. We really appreciate his comments, because he does such a great job for Canadians as the Chief Public Health Officer. He also expressed no reservations in that meeting with respect to his ability to report to the public and to provide scientific evidence. In fact, he still very much has the responsibility to report to Parliament each year.

I wonder if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can comment on why she is concerned. Does she not believe the Chief Public Health Officer and his assessment of the changes in this bill?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his comments. I want to thank him for leaving in a number of things in part four.

First I will note the extractive sector, which is an important initiative of the government with respect to the reporting of mining companies abroad.

The member also forgot the latest reports on the growth of the economy by 2.8% last month. He forgot about that. I wish he would have put that in, and also the employment growth.

The member made a comment with respect to the refund of the EI premium. I think he used the words “ripping off the EI fund”. If he recalls our comments from the committee, there are two major contributors to the EI fund. One is the employee and the other is the employer, who contributes about 60%. This is $550 million that is going back, especially to small businesses.

In New Brunswick, many of our small businesses have fewer than 10 employees. We are putting $550 million back in the hands of small business, which in my view would not only help them but would help them maintain some of the employment they have today.

The member cannot say that it is a rip-off. In fact, it is a refund of premiums back to a major contributor called the employer.

[National Day of the Midwife Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Alfred-Pellan shared some very interesting information regarding some of the provinces, including my province of New Brunswick, in which midwives are not very well represented. The question I have for her is about this recognition process and some of the good work that midwives do in various rural and remote communities.

Can she share with the House what enacting this day would mean for increasing the number of midwives? Would such recognition grow service by midwives in Canada, and potentially in rural communities and areas like New Brunswick?

[Sgt. Mark Gallagher Memorial Vocational School, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, October saw the culmination of years of work when Sgt. Mark Gallagher Memorial Vocational School opened in Haiti. The school educates students in agriculture, carpentry, masonry, secretarial, flooring, and tiling.

When RCMP Sgt. Gallagher and many others were killed in the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, it was a tragedy to the people of that country and to many New Brunswickers.

Mark's concern for the youth of Haiti was carried on by a committed group, called the Friends of Mark Gallagher, that envisioned building a school in Haiti in Mark's memory through a partnership with Petites Soeurs de Ste-Thérèse. A massive local fundraising effort ensued with qualified NGOs, such as l'Association québécoise pour l'avancement des Nations unies, and our government, through CIDA, to turn their vision into reality.

The Friends of Mark Gallagher, along with the province of New Brunswick community college network, the RCMP, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Woodstock Rotary Club, and Mark's family have seen their dream realized. I am happy to report that on October 13, the school opened its doors to the first set of students, with the official opening set for next week. The children, the very people who were on the mind of Mark Gallagher during his assignment with the RCMP in Haiti, will be the beneficiaries of something good for many years to come.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way a question.

I would like to correct her on one thing. She said that we were saying that we need these weapons. No one on this side ever said we needed them at all. In fact, they are reprehensible. We all want to get rid of them, and we are taking a leadership role internationally with the other countries in working toward this.

I want to quote testimony given by General Natynczyk in committee. He said:

My assessment is that the fulfillment of their routine military duties should not expose them to prosecution, for example, for calling in aircraft to save the lives of our soldiers or allowing an aircraft to land on an airfield we control, for air-to-air refuelling of fighter aircraft, for sharing of intelligence....

He went on to say:

Having had the exchange experience as the deputy commanding general of the Multi-National Force--Iraq throughout 2004, l can say to you with confidence that l was never aware that cluster bombs were actually stocked in theatre or that l participated in planning for their use or, in fact, authorized their use. I had none of that experience whatsoever.

However, unwittingly l could have done so, and l could have participated in activities, without my knowledge, that assisted in the use of cluster munitions, but l would not have known it at that time.

That is what clause 11 is all about. Does the hon. member not think it is important to protect our soldiers in the event that this happens, even though we have the amendment to say that they cannot use them specifically?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things during the committee process. The minister was there. To her point with respect to these cluster munitions and how horrific these things are, the minister brought a few examples to committee. They were not real examples, thank goodness, but models. We started to understand why there were many challenges where these were used in the past. Young children pick them up thinking they are toys. Hence, that is why a lot of countries are not using them, including Canada. Unfortunately, even though I do not think the U.S. has used them for quite some time, it still has not chosen to sign on as a signatory.

I want to ask the member the question I have asked before. We are trying to put this legislation into our Criminal Code and we just cannot accept that convention. It just does not work. Our legal people have told us that. I am an accountant, not a lawyer, but they said that we cannot put those UN conventions into our Criminal Code. Is that not important also as part of the reflection of this? It is not going to be a perfect alignment and that is why we need the protections, because the people we work with as part of our joint operations are not signatories, so we need to protect our Canadian soldiers as well.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a few things my colleague said about importing the language from the convention and do a little follow-up on the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' comments.

From legal counsel the comment in committee was it is very difficult a lot times to use treaty language because the words mean very different things.

When we started, we started with the cluster munitions convention. In this particular case, we took the language of the convention as a starting point and then we had to look at how we would blend this into Canadian criminal court law.

As I said earlier, stockpiling became possession because, in fact, they said there is really no way without defining it what an offence of stockpiling would be. If we criminalize possession, then we have caught somebody who has one cluster munition or 10,000. It does not matter. It is a broader offence, so it is much more collective than the munitions treaty.

He also talked about transfers. What they had to do in the convention is more of a state to state, as opposed to in the criminal court.

While I respect his opinion, I differ. That is why the government is going forward with the legislation.

Does he not also understand that legally, we are required to pass laws in this place which are applicable in a criminal court in Canada? In this case, he must agree that the convention does not adequately address coverage in a criminal court.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I would just like to talk to him about clause 11, because one of the comments of the previous speaker was that he would actually remove that.

There is interoperability, which we have to maintain, but also as a government we have to make sure that we are protecting our troops from getting into situations they are not planning to get into. At the same time, we have to recognize that we have never used cluster munitions, nor will we ever.

I have a quick question for the member on interoperational planning. The U.S. has failed to sign on to this. Obama will not sign on to this. A concern from a planning standpoint, in bringing all these things together, is that if clause 11 were actually taken out of the bill, I would be concerned that this would prevent Canadians from being involved in some of these planning missions, because they would not dare take on the risk of that interoperability planning. Even though maybe the Royal Canadian Air Force would be involved as part of the mission and should be in the planning, it would not want to be, because it would be held on criminal charges if clause 11 were actually taken out of the bill. I would like his comment on that.