Dean Allison

[Seniors, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proclaimed the first full week of June as Seniors Week and many Canadian provinces recognize June as Seniors Month.

During this month, as well as throughout the entire year, it is important for all Canadians to remember the tremendous contribution that our seniors have made and continue to make to the social and economic well-being of Canada. This is our opportunity to recognize all Canadian seniors for their past and continued contribution to this society.

Today there are over four million Canadians over the age of 65. This number continues to grow. They are our parents, grandparents, neighbours and friends. They are the wisdom keepers who remind us of from where we have come. They provide encouragement and inspiration for future generations. The role they play in our society is in fact irreplaceable.

As I undertake the role of official opposition critic for seniors issues, I will work diligently on behalf of Canadian seniors. I call on all hon. members to join me in celebrating Seniors Week and recognizing the continued contribution of Canadian seniors.

[Emergency Response Workers, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, a vital link between Canada and the United States was closed for several hours as a result of what was thought to be a spill of hazardous material. The good news is that it only turned out to be mace.

This effectively shut down the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls on one of the busiest weekends for border crossings and traffic had to be rerouted to other crossings. The bridge was closed for over five hours.

Niagara firefighters were one of the first on the scene followed by hazardous material cleanup teams. Four people were decontaminated as a precautionary measure before they were taken to hospital and emergency workers checked out 34 others.

In her most recent report, the Auditor General raised a concern regarding the lack of appropriate training for first line responders to emergency situations such as this.

This weekend's event is just one example as to why the government must adequately fund first line responders. These individuals risk their lives on a daily basis to protect all Canadians. We must be proactive to ensure Canadians receive the best protection possible by supporting our first line responders.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is also one of the questions I have. Once again we have heard over and over how Mr. Justice Gomery is allowed to draw conclusions and how he can formulate his response. I guess the question is why is there so much opposition from the government and other opposition parties with regard to the reason why he should not be allowed to name names and assign responsibility?

If Justice Gomery is allowed to do that, then I am not sure why we are spending all this time debating this today, other than I would suspect, as I said before, there is some kind of back door way that the government would look at to get out of this as soon as he begins to name names and assign responsibility.

I would agree with my colleague. Why not pass this to strengthen and reinforce what the government is telling Canadians is something already within Justice Gomery's mandate? Why not let Justice Gomery name names? Why not let Justice Gomery assign responsibility if indeed the government already believes that this is what he can do?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have only been a member for a year. One thing I have learned from the public accounts committee is that the devil is in the details.

A lot of what is said or what is not said, or what is written or not written is part of the reason why we get ourselves into this problem. I find it totally amazing that hundreds of millions of dollars could be misappropriated, misspent, stolen and sent to the Liberal Party. When we begin to question ministers and deputy ministers, there seems to be a huge problem with accountability, where the buck stops and who is responsible.

I certainly appreciate the thought process that the member mentions, that Mr. Justice Gomery should be able to draw conclusions. My concern is, that given the fact that the mandate says that he is not allowed without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding civil or criminal activity, what will happen should he have a chance to mention that? What will happen? Will someone cry foul? Will someone say “I can't believe that he wasn't allowed to do that. Let's rule him out of order”.

Certainly, I have seen enough during my short time in the House to understand that many times the devil is in the details in terms of what is allowed to be done or not allowed to be done.

My response to the hon. member for St. Catharines would be that if indeed Mr. Justice Gomery is allowed to name names, then this motion should not be a problem for people to support if that is really the case. It would then finalize what we suspect in terms of what he should be allowed to do under section (k).

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion which reads:

That this House call on the Government to amend section (k) of the Gomery Commission's terms of reference to allow the Commissioner to name names and assign responsibility.

Clause (k) of the Gomery commission terms of reference reads as follows:

the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

As a result of clause (k), Justice Gomery is expressly forbidden to name any person or organization as being responsible for part of the sponsorship scandal. While it is important for Justice Gomery to file his report, the Canadian people have already heard first hand the abuse of the program and the outright thievery by the Liberal Party.

Let me take a few moments to remind my colleagues and all Canadians of the facts of the sponsorship scandal.

It is well documented that the Prime Minister has promised Canadians he would get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It is also well documented that the Prime Minister claims he had no knowledge whatsoever of any wrongdoing. We continually find through various testimony and documentation that this is simply not the case.

Recently the Prime Minister made a pathetic televised plea to Canadians that it was necessary to have Justice Gomery issue his report before an election. This is just another example of dithering and flip-flopping. One example of this was when he called the last federal election for June 2004.

While he said that he was the one who set up the Gomery inquiry, it was also he who took the sponsorship file out of the hands of the public accounts committee. It was he who prorogued the House. Why did he do that?

He ignored the parliamentary process in allowing the public accounts committee to examine all witnesses and release its findings on the sponsorship scandal. He called a snap election before Justice Gomery could ever hear from a witness, let alone create a report for Canadians to know the truth. He told Canadians that those who were involved in stealing their hard earned tax dollars would be held responsible.

The reality of this is that it was the Prime Minister who handcuffed Justice Gomery before his inquiry even began.

Skeptical Canadians only gave the Prime Minister a minority government with which to work. As a result, he was forced to follow through on his commitment to allow Justice Gomery and the sponsorship inquiry to continue. What he strategically omitted from the inquiry's mandate was that Justice Gomery had no ability to point the finger and assign blame.

By including clause (k), the Prime Minister is not allowing Justice Gomery to name names in his final report. This will deny Canadians everything the Prime Minister has promised. Another Liberal promise made, another Liberal promise broken.

This is the worst scandal in Canadian history, but it is not a Canadian scandal or a Quebec scandal. It is a Liberal scandal. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was misappropriated, laundered and mysteriously ended up in Liberal pockets. Even worse, it is Liberal thievery that has strengthened separatist sentiments in Quebec.

If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide and is sincere about getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, he should have no problem allowing Justice Gomery to name the individuals who are responsible. If the Prime Minister's track record of breaking promises holds true, then I would doubt his sincerity.

Since this sponsorship scandal began, week after week, month after month, we have been continually shocked by the depth of Liberal corruption. Just last week we learned from a forensic audit, performed at the request of Justice Gomery, of yet another $100 million that was funnelled through the sponsorship program. That makes 350 million questionable dollars so far spent by the Liberal government, not to mention millions more on an inquiry that will be able to do nothing more than state the obvious.

Money was stolen from Canadians and this money ended up in the pockets of the Liberal Party and its friends. We know that a separate fund has been set up for $750,000. However, we also realize, through sworn testimony in recent weeks, that number could be as high as $2.5 million and continuing to grow.

Now we find out that the Prime Minister finds it necessary to use another million dollars and counting of taxpayer money for his Gomery war room. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe the scandal has nothing to do with the current Liberal government. Testimony states otherwise.

In June 1999 the current Prime Minister's Office called the sponsorship program to lobby for a specific firm. Former public works minister and the man in charge of the sponsorship program, Alfonso Gagliano, claimed that the current Prime Minister was fully aware of the sponsorship program.

The man charged with issuing the sponsorship contracts, Chuck Guité, said that the current Prime Minister intervened in the contracting process. Claude Boulay, a man in the centre of the sponsorship scandal, detailed his relationship with the Prime Minister. Mr. Boulay's wife, Diane Deslauriers, the queen of Liberal fundraising in Quebec, also outlined her relationship with the current Prime Minister.

Alain Renaud has stated under oath that the Prime Minister's assistant lobbied for Groupaction to receive sponsorship money. Jean Brault has admitted to funnelling $1.1 million to the Liberal Party. He has also admitted to having campaign workers on his payroll to disguise their source of income.

The director general of the Liberal Party in Quebec, Benoît Corbeil, has confirmed that he received money from Jean Brault to pay campaign workers during the 2000 election. Daniel Dezainde admitted that Mr. Gagliano referred him to Joe Morselli and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean-Marc Bard, for the financial needs of the party. Jacques Corriveau admitted to receiving about $8 million in commission on sponsorship projects for little or no work. The testimony goes on and on.

However, this testimony, along with many more facts, would be absolutely worthless if Justice Gomery's mandate is not expanded. If this is the case, then why, under pressure, did the Prime Minister create a trust fund to repay stolen money? The Prime Minister has already protected his interest by not letting the Gomery inquiry investigate public opinion research.

In a recent public accounts committee, when I questioned a Liberal strategist and former chief of staff to the Minister of Public Works, Warren Kinsella, along with Allan Cutler, the whistleblower in this sponsorship scandal, they confirmed that the Prime Minister was privy to information of contract fixing to a firm he has close ties to, Earnscliffe. This would never be revealed at the Gomery inquiry because the mandate conveniently excluded its ability to investigate public opinion research contracts. However, the Auditor General agreed that public opinion research contracting had serious flaws.

Just last week, the findings of the forensic audit shed light on the underhanded procurement of public opinion contracts. This is all information that will never be found in Justice Gomery's final report because the Prime Minister does not want it there. This is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians when he created the Gomery inquiry.This is not what he continues to promise Canadians. The Prime Minister's promises are nothing more than empty words.

On a daily basis, the Prime Minister or his minions stand in this House and claim that Canadians need all the facts of the Gomery inquiry before they pass judgment. Yet, they will not allow Justice Gomery to lay blame where it belongs. Let us give Canadians a chance to know all the facts, not just the ones the Prime Minister is comfortable with.

The real injustice would be not allowing Canadians to know who stole their money, who let this happen, and who turned a blind eye to it. That is why this motion must pass.

[Petitions, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed the House on numerous occasions defending the traditional definition of marriage. Today I rise again in the House to present more petitions on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook pursuant to Standing Order 36(1).

I feel the need to continue to rise in the House because of the overwhelming correspondence I have continued to receive defending the traditional definition of marriage.

These petitioners urge the Parliament of Canada to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others. These petitions only represent a fraction of the thousands of pieces of correspondence I have received and continue to receive from my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I urge my fellow hon. members from all parties to respect the voices of their constituents when they vote on this matter as they are the voices of Canadian democracy.

[Question No. 123, May 18th, 2005]

Since October 23, 1993, did Earnscliffe or Veraxis or their principals receive any: ( a ) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount each company received; and ( b ) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts each company obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to these companies, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?

[Question No. 122, May 18th, 2005]

Since October 23, 1993, did Ekos or its principals receive any: ( a ) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount received; and ( b ) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to Ekos or its principals, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?

[The Prime Minister, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime Minister continue to tarnish Canada's great reputation for democracy around the world? When is the Prime Minister going to realize that it is not he who decides if there is confidence in the government. It is the democratic duty of the House to decide whether there is confidence in the government. It is the democratic duty of the Prime Minister to respect the will of the House.

The Prime Minister has not only ignored the House but he has ignored the will of Canadians.

Why, if the Prime Minister is so sure of his moral authority to govern, will he not call a confidence vote on Monday?

[The Prime Minister, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, day after day the Prime Minister continues to stand before this House demeaning the democratic rights of Canadians. Last night was the final straw. He has ignored the founding principle of our country, democracy.

In ignoring the non-confidence in the House, as expressed in the House by last night's vote, the Prime Minister has confirmed two things. He has most definitely lost the moral authority to govern and it is his intention to continue to run the country as a Liberal dictatorship no matter what the voices of Canadian people state they want. It would appear that the Prime Minister has forgotten that it is this House that represents Canadians, not he or his party or his inner circle.

It is time the Prime Minister realized that Canadians will not stand for being stolen from, lied to and having their democratic rights trampled on. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop dithering and stop desperately clinging to power. Government is not about legacy. It is about democracy. The voices of Canadians must not be ignored. It is time for the Prime Minister to acknowledge that the House has no confidence in the government. It is time he realized that Canadians have no confidence in him.