Stan Keyes

[Alcoholic Beverage Labelling, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre listed those who have devoted themselves to building awareness of the importance of drinking responsibly. To be fair, one group the hon. member forgot to mention is the Brewers Association of Canada.

Warning labels on alcohol beverage containers on their own will not put an end to the most serious problem of fetal alcohol syndrome. In fact research has shown that 98% of women of childbearing age already know about the link between alcohol misuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. They are already aware of it.

I have a brewery in my riding. There are many members of parliament with breweries in their ridings. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Etobicoke North, has two breweries in his riding. We will not apologize for the fact that we have breweries in our ridings, because since 1987 the Brewers Association of Canada and its member brewers have devoted well in excess of $100 million to communicating messages about the importance of drinking responsibly.

In addition to high profile advertising campaigns, brewers provide significant funding and other resources to a range of partner organizations involved in alcohol research, counselling, and the direct delivery of educational and awareness programs.

Putting a label on a bottle on its own will not do the job. It is all the other work that is being done currently by those who are responsible, by those organizations like the Brewers Association of Canada.

For example, there is the Motherisk program of the Hospital for Sick Children. Canada's brewers sponsor Motherisk's national toll free alcohol and substance use help line, 1-877-FAS-INFO, which provides callers with fact based information on how alcohol and substances can affect a developing fetus.

There is the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Funding is provided to the Fetal Alcohol Resource Centre of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, which acts as a clearing house for information on FAS-FAE for medical professionals, parents and children.

The BAC, the Brewers Association of Canada, provided funding to the College of Family Physicians of Canada to design a program for family physicians called the alcohol risk assessment and intervention, ARAI, program. The ARAI method gives family doctors the tools needed to identify patients most at risk, which helps them identify and help patients with problems related to harmful alcohol consumption.

Brewers sponsored the caring together program of the Native Physicians Association, which produced an FAS information poster series, video and guide, as well as an interactive board game aimed at native youth, which uses traditional symbols and teachings to address native lifestyle and health concerns. This is not just a label on a bottle but actual traditional symbols used by our native communities so they better understand the problem.

The Brewers Association of Canada together with Young Drivers of Canada developed a video message that tells new drivers not to drink and drive. We have all seen it. This message, delivered by professional race car drivers, is seen by more than 40,000 new Canadian drivers each and every year.

The Brewers Association of Canada initiated a partnership with L'Université de Moncton and the University of New Brunswick to develop Internet based activities for use in schools to educate young teens about alcohol.

The BAC is a partner in a computer based training software focused on the safe operation of personal water craft. BAC messaging encourages responsible behaviour and urges people not to drink and drive on the road or on the water. Other program partners include Bombardier and Shell Canada. This is a team effort. It is a delivery of a message by all concerned.

Since 1982, Canadian brewers and their U.S. counterparts have funded the Alcohol Beverage Medical Research Foundation. Associated with Johns Hopkins University, it provides research grants to study the medical, social and behavioural impacts of alcohol consumption. The foundation has provided more than $30 million in funding to 480 research projects here in Canada and in the U.S.

How about Speak Up, Speak Out, Be Heard? This is a multimillion dollar public service alcohol information campaign targeted specifically at young people using concepts and messages developed by young Canadians to be relevant to people their own age.

In order to leave time at the end of the debate to ensure that we have an opportunity to have a vote on this particular issue, I will conclude with the following words. The president and CEO of the Brewers Association of Canada, Sandy Morrison, said:

We work with a lot of people who are dedicated to bringing important information about responsible behaviour to those who need it. At a very human and personal level, these people are making a difference.

At a very human and personal level, these people are making a difference.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, March 20th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (inventory of brownfields).

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to introduce a bill, which is the first step of what I intend to be a three stage process, aimed at identifying, assessing and remediating what are known as brownfields. The term brownfields refers to industrial properties which lie vacant or neglected due to concerns of environmental contamination.

The bill will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to expand the existing registry so that any member of the public can report suspected contaminated sites with the express purpose of building an easily accessible national registry of brownfields.

The bill would also allow the federal government, together with provincial, municipal and private partnerships, to assist with the often prohibitive costs of environmental assessments.

To solve a problem one first has to identify the problem. Ultimately, I see this is as a three stage process: identification, assessment and remediation. The bill addresses the first two stages directly. First, we identify the extent of the brownfields nationally. Once we know where these sites are, we can begin to assess the costs of the clean up.

Having this information open and available to all levels of government and private enterprise will foster co-operative and innovative solutions. The advantages of the remediation of brownfields are obvious: job growth, revitalization of our downtown cores and reversal of urban sprawl, as well as the clean up of potentially environmental hazardous sites right in our own back yards.

The bill is a small but crucial step toward reclaiming these commercially useful sites, revitalizing our city centres and combating urban sprawl.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, having given that brief explanation, I think the subamendment is in order because it seeks to clarify the amendment that had been put forward in somewhat of a stunt fashion by the opposition. It clarifies for yourself and for the House that we want a continuation of exactly what the motion addresses.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, for your consideration and for members opposite, I do not understand what would be more immediate than continued.

That aside, let us talk about the political stuntery that went on here. It is common knowledge that the opposition wants to put forward a motion in the House of Commons for consideration and for all to vote. In a procedural vote on an issue that may have been of interest to constituents watching, it is about now that constituents will change over to their favourite game show on the television set. This is the kind of thing that bores them to death.

The opposition refers to political stuntery and who brought it up. If the constituents are still watching, they might want to take this into consideration. The opposition leader made his speech. Then, for the benefit of the folks at home, members of the opposition decided to split their leader's time.

Why did they do that? They did that because the second opposition speaker, and this is directly related to this issue, will move an amendment to the motion. What that does is kill the opportunity for any other party in the House to move an amendment to the motion.

Where is the political stuntery in that? The opposition is claiming that we are politically—

[Health, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. While we are waiting to receive results from labs in Winnipeg to determine if in fact a critically ill woman at Henderson General Hospital in Hamilton is infected with the ebola virus, the concerns of Canadians, in particular Hamiltonians, are rising.

What steps has the Minister of Health taken to protect the people of Hamilton and Canadians everywhere from such deadly infectious diseases?

[Foreign Affairs, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching developments in the Middle East with great alarm and dismay.

We are witnessing the worst violence seen in recent years, with casualties mounting on all sides. It appears that the prospects for a meaningful peace between Israelis and Palestinians may be in jeopardy.

All Canadians are holding their breath in the hope that today's emergency summit meeting in Egypt will bring an end to the violence and a return to the negotiating table.

Canada's role should not be to lay blame. Canada's role should not be to support inflammatory, lopsided resolutions. Canada's role should be to live up to our well earned reputation as a peacekeeper and an effective negotiator on the world stage.

We ask the people of the Middle East to exercise restraint and place reason over passion in their march toward peace.

Here in our own communities, we must also remember to hold true to the Canadian values of equality, tolerance and compassion.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member should know it is not a point of order but he has not been around for very long.

The New Democratic Party member was talking about tinkering steps. He said it was little bits. We have premium reductions totalling $1.2 billion, program changes coming up to $500 million, a total of $1.7 billion. I am sure the hon. member could not count to $1.7 billion never mind admit that it is a lot of money for EI.

Here is what his brothers and sisters are saying.

The hon. member has the unmitigated gall to stand in this place and say that this is only vote getting for Atlantic Canada when his own brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO say in today's paper in a full page ad that this is nothing at all about votes on the east coast, that this benefits working men and women from coast to coast to coast.

The Canadian office of the building and construction trades council says that repealing the intensity rule and restoring the single income tested clawback rule is sound policy for all unemployed workers from coast to coast to coast, that taking this action reveals a government with courage to take corrective steps when they are needed at any time during its mandate.

I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. Is $1.7 billion about tinkering? What about his brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO and other Canadian building and trade councils who fully endorse the actions of the government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

[Employment Insurance Act, October 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member certainly must think there is an election in the air by the way he rambled on. I have never heard such nonsense. Imagine. He is an hon. member who considers—

[Committees Of The House, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Thursday, June 1, 2000, your committee has considered Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Special thanks must be given to the men and women in the committee and legislative branch, especially my committee clerk, Guyanne Desforges, who pulled double and even triple duty in a very limited timeframe to achieve this result.

[Medical Research, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for Dr. Stuart Connolly of McMaster University in Hamilton and his team of researchers.

In a study funded by the Medical Research Council and recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Connolly found that an older, simpler design of cardiac pacemaker is less expensive, more effective and safer than a newer, more complex type, which is welcome news to more than 10,000 Canadians who receive pacemaker implants every year.

This study shows the high quality of research being done across Canada, made possible through the expertise of our doctors and scientists, and through agencies like the Medical Research Council and the Canada research chairs program.

On behalf, I am sure, of every member of the House, I would like to recognize the excellent work that is being done by McMaster University and across the country by our researchers, doctors and scientists.