Dean Allison

[The Prime Minister, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear from sworn testimony in public accounts that the Prime Minister was not only aware of what was going on, but was treating contracts in the same way as Alfonso Gagliano, using Chuck Guité to funnel money not only to Liberal friendly firms but to the current Prime Minister's leadership campaign.

Is it true that he has hidden his own scandal from Gomery because he does not want Canadians to know the truth?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians belong to a long tradition of democracy, of deciding on core values that are most important to them and creating laws to reflect those values. If an important social institution that affects every Canadian regardless of race, ethnic origin or religious background is to be changed, it must only be changed according to the collective will and wisdom of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party did not include changing the definition of marriage as a plank in their campaign platform during the election. There has been no broad consultation with Canadians. The cabinet is not free to vote according to their constituents' wishes. The Prime Minister knows that this legislation does not reflect Canadian principles. Instead of listening to communities across this country, the Liberal government is declaring that Canadians cannot be trusted to do what is right.

When I vote against this unnecessary and unwanted legislation, I will be voting in support of two core beliefs that society is built upon. The first principle is that marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman. The other principle is that Canadians expect their elected officials to represent them with openness and accountability.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply aware of both the privilege and the responsibility that I have as the representative of the diverse communities and residents that compose the riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook.

All my fellow members of Parliament and I have a duty to reflect the values and concerns of our constituents. I will be voting against this legislation that would change the definition of marriage, confident that I am faithfully taking the direction that has been so clearly expressed by the people of Niagara West—Glanbrook.

More than any other item on the government's agenda, which has been incredibly lacking when it comes to effectively responding to the real concerns of Canadians, the issue of same sex marriage has evoked an outpouring of commentary.

Sometimes I wonder if the real reason the Liberal government is focusing so much energy on same sex marriage is to detract media and public attention from the fact that it has no vision, no focus and no direction for the future. That is one of the frequent comments I have been hearing from the residents of Niagara West—Glanbrook.

It certainly is odd that a government that dithers on practically every decision is so determined on changing the definition of marriage. The fact that the government has embraced this legislation as the centrepiece of the Prime Minister's legacy shows how out of touch the government has really become.

The same sex marriage bill has inspired tremendous debate and consideration throughout all segments of my community. I received feedback from more than 10,000 individuals from my constituency and thousands more from coast to coast on the definition of marriage. Even as I speak, I know my office staff are opening more letters and e-mails and answering more phone calls opposing the same sex marriage issue. Overwhelmingly, the residents of the communities of Niagara West—Glanbrook have indicated support for maintaining the current definition of marriage.

I agree with the majority of public views I have received that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. During the election campaign, I promised I would vote in support of this definition. Promise made, promise kept. I will respect my constituents' wishes.

I solicited the views of my constituents by asking them in a newsletter what they thought. I would like to share that response with members of Parliament. Almost 90% are against changing the meaning of marriage; 9% support changing it, and the remainder have no opinion.

Contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister with regard to anyone who does not support this legislation, the residents of my riding are in fact Canadian. They do believe in Canadian values. They believe in democracy and they believe in the protection of individual rights and freedoms. They are Canadians who expect to have their voices heard in Parliament.

I remind all members that their constituents similarly want to have their voices heard, but is the governing party listening? Are individual Liberal MPs representing their constituents?

The truth is that when it comes to democratic values, the Liberal Party is intolerant of any position that does not agree with its position. The evidence is that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the government have been clearly told that they must vote to change the meaning of marriage if they want to keep their job. It does not matter if their constituents disagree with their vote. They have no voice. Only the Prime Minister's voice matters. The collective will of Parliament is being ignored because of the Prime Minister's smug confidence that he knows best.

In 1999 the Parliament of Canada passed a motion in support of the traditional definition of marriage. The vote was 216 in favour and 55 opposed. A clear majority of members of Parliament, responsible and accountable to Canadians who elected them as MPs across Canada, had their say and now it is being ignored.

The commitments made by individual Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers again have also become worthless. The former Liberal minister of justice and current Deputy Prime Minister said, “I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. I guess the Deputy Prime Minister wants to keep her fancy car and driver.

Before he became a cabinet minister, the government House leader was firm in his principles and beliefs. To quote from a letter he wrote in February 2001: “I strongly concur with your view that the sanctity of marriage must be upheld in Canadian society”. He explained that he voted in support of the motion to preserve the definition of marriage and said that he would continue to do so. Perhaps he forgot to add, “Until I get a cabinet appointment and my marching orders from the Prime Minister”.

I urge these ministers, along with other Liberal members who are uncomfortable with the Prime Minister muzzling their constituents, to break rank and to represent their constituents, not their party leader and Prime Minister.

This past weekend CTV had a poll that indicated some of the least desirable or least trustworthy professions, careers and jobs. It is no wonder that politicians were at the end of the list as not being well respected, along with car salesmen.

It is insulting to see the Prime Minister wrap himself in the Canadian flag claiming that marriage must be changed and attack any opponents as trampling on human rights. The Prime Minister's arguments are weak and cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister talked about rights and freedoms of Canadians, yet is the first to attack individuals who support the traditional definition of marriage as being religious zealots. The proposed legislation opens up a Pandora's box of problems, particularly in the areas of religious freedom.

Will churches be allowed to teach their beliefs related to marriage? Will religious leaders be forced to set aside their beliefs or even face persecution if they refuse to perform same sex marriages? Will religious schools be able to hire staff who respect and follow their doctrines and practices? Will the charitable status of religious organizations be threatened? Will marriage commissioners be penalized or lose their job if they refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance to their religious belief?

Despite the assurances of the Prime Minister, the legislation contains no such protection. A few words in the preamble, not the actual text of the legislation, do not carry the legal weight to offer any kind of guarantee. There are simple ways to ensure that religious freedoms are protected. Do not change the definition of marriage.

The clear message I have heard from my constituents is that they do not want this fundamental institution changed. They overwhelmingly believe that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. The Prime Minister has suggested that anyone opposed to his scheme of redefining marriage is somehow going against Canadian values of fairness and equality. I want to be clear that the constituents of my riding are not being discriminatory. Canadians have had the good sense to know that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is not contrary to same sex couples also having rights to equality within our society.

The law can and should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Canadians belong to a long tradition--

[Auditor General Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-277 and to compliment the member for Repentigny on his noble purpose in this private member's bill. Without hesitation, I applaud the intention to expand the scope of the Office of the Auditor General. It is a measure that I know the residents of my community feel is long overdue.

The Auditor General has become somewhat of a hero to all of us, but perhaps not to the government, which cringes every time she sheds more light on its mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars.

As an officer of Parliament, the Auditor General serves us well with the thorough audits of the accounts of federal government departments. However, there are currently many organizations, funded with billions of tax dollars, which she does not have the authority to investigate. These federal crown corporations include the Bank of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Telefilm Canada, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation.

Beyond these significant corporations that operate with taxpayers' money, there are also numerous foundations that receive the majority of their funding from the government. These include: the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, Canada Health Infoway Inc., Genome Canada, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.

There are also endowment funds, which include the following: the Green Municipal Funds, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust, the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund Society, the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, the University of Moncton and Frontier College Learning Foundation.

Other foundations also include: the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the Green Municipal Enabling Fund, Precarn, the Canadian Network for the Advancement Research, Industry and Education, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and the Canadian Centre for Learning and Development.

To my mind, any organization established and operated on government funding needs to be open to the appropriate scrutiny to ensure that Canadians are being served well and our money is being spent responsibly.

I sat on the Ontario Trillium Foundation, which gives out $100 million a year, and I can assure the House that what the government is doing pales in comparison to the levels of scrutiny and accountability we faced for $100 million. The levels of accountability were far more significant for only $100 million than they are for the billions of dollars we are talking about here today. I believe there should be more scrutiny of this money.

All Canadians deserve this overdue accountability. During my last election campaign, accountability was the central issue in my community. People have lost trust and confidence in their government and its institutions and, based on a recent survey, I would say in politicians as well. I do not blame them.

It was because of this that I lost trust in this government and decided to run for office and advocate for accountability. Over the past 11 years of the Liberal government we have seen shocking scandals involving grants, contributions and government contracts. This was driven home again last week by the continued revelations at the Gomery commission.

The Auditor General has led numerous investigations into government mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. It is clear that the government is incapable of managing taxpayers' dollars in a prudent manner. Government spending has continued unabated and with little accountability. Funds are too often being used for all the wrong reasons. This government needs a watchdog with sharp teeth and a strong bite to keep it in line.

The federal government spends approximately $18 billion a year on various grants and contributions and another $13 billion annually in awarding government contracts. This is a staggering amount of taxpayers' dollars and we trust our government to spend it responsibly.

Unfortunately, experience has shown us that we have misplaced that trust. Unarguably, a serious review of all government spending is required. Canadians have found out in recent years that the Prime Minister's companies received $161 million of taxpayers' money, not the $137,000 originally claimed by the government.

We have also watched $100 million disappear into thin air as government friendly communications agencies were paid millions of dollars in commissions and fees, with little or no service provided to the federal government or to Canadians. The gun registry was supposed to cost $2 million and is now costing us $2 billion, and $1 billion in grants and contributions at Human Resources Development Canada was misappropriated.

The list seems endless. What is really scary is that these abuses of tax dollars took place in departments that were subject to investigation by the Auditor General. We all have to wonder what other horrible mismanagement we may uncover through the extension of audits to a broader spectrum of the government departments and other organizations that receive government funding.

What we do not know does in fact hurt us. That is why it is so important to find out how federal crown corporations and other bodies established by Parliament and funded by Canadian taxpayers' dollars are managing Canadian resources and funding.

We need transparency and accuracy in all the accounting of government finances, whether that is for a government department like defence, a government corporation like Canada Post or an at arm's length foundation like Canada Health Infoway.

The Auditor General has stated that since 1997 the government has transferred $9.1 billion to 15 foundations. As of March 31, 2004, $7.7 billion was either still in the foundations' bank accounts and investments accumulating interest or was a receivable from the government, yet the government has already recorded these transfers as expenses.

The Auditor General has also stated that she is concerned about the manner in which these foundations are funded, the accounting for transfers and the accountability regime for the foundations. With her current mandate, she has no authority to audit any of these foundations even though this is taxpayers' money.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no parliamentary accountability or scrutiny of these foundations whatsoever. Can members believe that this government, which is constantly telling us that it believes in transparency and accountability, has not taken into account the Auditor General's own recommendations, year after year, on being able to review and audit these foundation books?

Nine billion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been handed over with absolutely no parliamentary perusal or scrutiny or even a review by the Auditor General. Not only is this reckless, but this government's unaccountability is totally unacceptable.

Again, I agree with the objective of this bill. The Auditor General should most definitely have access to all the government books. I will support this bill's passage in principle. There is some loose wording that needs to be tightened, such as specifying that the Auditor General should be the Auditor General of any federal crown corporation rather than just crown corporations, as the bill currently reads. However, I am certain that the appropriate amendments, which we will propose at the committee level, can address such items.

I also think this bill should be expanded upon. Along with providing access to all government books to the Office of the Auditor General, we need to include access to the books of other outside organizations such as foundations, and we need to provide appropriate resources for the Auditor General to fully and completely execute her duties to the best of her ability.

There is no doubt that the cost of implementing expanded audit services will be substantial. However, the benefits of enhanced scrutiny are well worth the initial cost. The public's trust and confidence in government operations need to be restored and that can only happen through rigid accountability measures.

In fact, I would argue that the Auditor General should be authorized and directed to conduct expedited audits on all federal grant and contribution programs and contracting policies. Granting programs should be reviewed every five years on an ongoing basis at an absolute minimum.

As well, the government should act on the Auditor General's recommendations rather than just let them gather dust.

I would have no problem in supporting increased funding for internal audit functions and I am sure many of my esteemed colleagues would feel the same. The payoff for all Canadians would be tremendous. With a clear and accurate picture of how our tax dollars are spent, we could finally move forward in meeting the concrete demands of Canadians by providing more focused federal government that gives better service to all of us.

We would spend our money more wisely and clean up government waste and mismanagement. As a result, we could provide to Canadians both more efficient government and tax relief.

[National Security, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the residents and taxpayers of the Niagara region are paying for the security of all Canadians by taking on the lion's share of border policing without federal assistance.

The Niagara Regional Police Service is the first to respond to calls for service at the border. From 2002 until August 2004 there were over 2,000 incidents that required the presence and resources of our community police at the border.

There is clear evidence that international border policing is currently being funded by local taxpayers only. The increased financial hardship on Niagara's property tax base since the heightened security requirements stemming from 9/11 needs to be addressed fairly by the government. Niagara police and residents are proud to contribute to our national security but the financial burden is not only unfair but also unsustainable.

On behalf of Niagara property taxpayers, I urge our federal government to properly fund the vital national security services currently provided by our local police. The downloading of responsibility without the equivalent resources is draining our municipality.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also share the concerns of my colleague from Welland with regard to the costs at border crossings and what the Niagara Regional Police need to look after. It is good to see that $430 million has been committed.

I have two questions. One is on border security. Does the member think that some of that money will flow to our region? It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 calls that have been responded to over the last couple of years at the border, at a cost of almost $400,000. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Welland shares that concern.

The other question is with regard to the wineries. I know that he has also been a supporter of that industry. The last couple of finance committees have unanimously supported dropping the excise tax on wine going out of the country. I see that even though recommendations were made by the finance committee, and all parties unanimously made the recommendations, there was nothing in the budget with regard to the excise tax. Does the member see some relief coming soon for some of the wineries that we share jointly in the Niagara region?

Of that $430 million, does the member see some money coming in the next little while for our region? On the excise tax, does he see any relief coming shortly for that as well?

[Food and Drugs Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to mention that I have been talking about the bill with the member for Niagara Falls. We are not splitting time because there is not enough time, but we have consulted on bringing forward this thought process. Not discounting the serious nature of the bill, which is the reduction of impaired driving and the health risks associated with too much alcohol consumption, I ask the House to consider whether labelling is the most effective way to address this issue.

I am pleased to comment on the proposal requiring warning labels on alcoholic beverages. In general terms I am always supportive of measures that allow Canadians to make fully informed choices regarding their health. Product labelling certainly seems to fall under that philosophy.

Best intentions are obviously behind the bill, but I think we have to resist the easy choice of simply implementing what seems to be an innocuous measure to inform consumers of potential health and safety risks. On the surface the bill proposes what seems to be a straightforward item. Individuals may be tempted to support the legislation without looking at ramifications for the future and what this bill assumes about the average Canadian consumer.

Let us be realistic. Are there really millions of Canadians who are not aware that drinking alcohol impairs their ability to drive or operate machinery? I have yet to hear of a drunk driving defence claiming that a charged driver should be cleared because he was not aware that drinking alcohol is dangerous for driving. Are there millions of pregnant women who do not know that they should avoid alcohol for the sake of the developing baby?

To put it bluntly, I find the bill unnecessary and condescending. In many ways it is typical of a Liberal nanny state where the government believes that the public is not capable of personal responsibility without the benefit of government guidance. What is next? Should we put warning labels on buildings and other tall structures like hills and mountains telling people they would be harmed if they jump off them? How about labels on candies and chocolate bars: “Overconsumption combined with a lack of exercise may cause obesity”. How about bathtubs? “Breathing in contents of full tub may cause choking and/or drowning”.

The fact is, Canadians know the dangers of alcohol misuse. Warning labels will do nothing to enhance the awareness. Where is the science-based evidence that warning labels work? The U.S. has studied the effectiveness of warning labels due to an explicit evaluation requirement in the 1989 alcohol labelling act. The last follow-up data for the evaluation was collected in 1995.

The U.S. warning label reads as follows:

Government Warning: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.

The findings from U.S. studies show that the implementation of warning labels in the U.S. did not reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome. Perceptions of the risks associated with drinking mentioned on the labels, i.e. drinking while pregnant, drinking and driving et cetera, were high before the introduction of the labels. That did not change significantly after their introduction.

These findings suggest that warning labels by themselves are not particularly effective in increasing the perception of specific risks associated with drinking. Studies published four years after implementation of the warning labels did not show significant behavioural changes attributable to the warning labels, especially among heavy drinkers. Most disturbing was that the number of women in the U.S. who reported drinking while pregnant actually increased between 1989 and 1993.

These findings suggest that over the short term or medium term alcohol warning labels are not effective at changing problematic drinking behaviours.

There is also a lack of testing of existing labels in Canada. Warning labels have been in place in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for several years now. Over that time, the incidence of alcohol abuse has not decreased and we are not aware of any studies that have been undertaken to prove the efficiency of the labels.

In the province of Ontario, as my colleague on the other side of the floor mentioned, there was Bill 43, more commonly known as Sandy's law, which was passed in 2004. The regulations were proclaimed just this month.

As of February 1, licensed restaurants and bars, LCBO stores, beer stores, beverage alcohol manufacturers' stores and licensed brew-on-premise facilities will be required to post a fetal alcohol syndrome warning sign in a prominent location where it can be seen by all patrons. In my opinion, that is the better way to do this. Is it not better to post the warning at the place where one is able to purchase alcohol? The effectiveness of these existing warning signs should be tested before proceeding with another type of warning.

Another problem is that warning labels are a blanket approach and do not directly target the most affected populations. According to a 2004 Canadian addiction survey released on November 23 by the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, or CECA, Health Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, over 85% of the population either drinks responsibly or abstains from alcohol, so once again, we are looking at targeting a very small minority of the population.

This legislation would direct limited resources to a vast majority of the drinking public that does not require the education and/or the assistance. Among those Canadians who consumed alcohol during the past year, it is estimated that 17%, or 13.6% of the entire population, are defined as high risk drinkers. I submit to the House that this is probably where our education dollars should go: toward these high risk groups.

When the problem is examined from a gender based perspective, the data is particularly revealing. The proportion of women identified as high risk drinkers is only 8.9%, whereas the figures for men are nearly triple that at 25.1%.

A more effective response to labelling would be to target these high risk groups, such as youth and mothers-to-be, with education and awareness programs. We certainly do not have any problem with that at all.

Warning labels will cost the beverage producers time and money and this is where I have some concerns for my constituents. The member for Niagara Falls and I represent a large number of wineries run by small business people who quite frankly depend very largely on being able to sell their product. They are not opposed to having labels in prominent positions, but certainly the issue of labelling right on the bottles is a concern. It is a concern not only from a cost point of view, but also from an image branding of the product. Suddenly having to revise all existing labels, if they have to replace them on all bottles, is going to be expensive and it is going to be a problem.

If someone can show me some concrete proof, which is not the kind of proof that former prime minister Jean Chrétien talked about in the context of a proof is a proof, that this measure would actually do something to prevent health and safety dangers, I would support it without hesitation. Labelling is an attractive measure for government. It does not require any effort or thought by the government, but it gives the appearance that the government has acted. That is a cop-out.

We can all vote in support of warning labels and pat ourselves on the back for doing something, but unfortunately the labels will not result in a reduction of traffic accidents due to alcohol or fewer babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome. We know that programs like RIDE are effective in decreasing impaired driving. If we want to have a further impact on decreasing alcohol abuse, we need to put further resources into enforcing underage drinking laws and impaired driving laws and into targeting education campaigns at high risk groups. Further financial support for medical and behavioural research would also be money well spent because it would allow us to focus our efforts where they would be most effective.

I suspect that some members will support the vote on the bill because they do not want to have their opposition misinterpreted as being against health and safety, but I will be voting against the bill for two reasons. It is ineffective and it misleads the public into believing the government is taking some sort of action. I hope that those who feel the same way will not hesitate to make their position known through their vote.

[Millennium Partnership Program, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the millennium fund operated much like the sponsorship fund. The Prime Minister claims that he knew nothing as the finance minister about existing slush funds that had no transparency or accountability to taxpayers: $725 million in the unity fund, $250 million in the sponsorship scandal, and now another $150 million in the millennium bureau. There is a disturbing pattern of hiding information and misleading Canadians.

Is the Prime Minister keeping Canadians in the dark on purpose or is he admitting his incompetence and inability to manage taxpayers' money?

[Hamilton International Airport, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I call on the government today to provide the appropriate support to Hamilton International Airport and halt the unnecessary Pickering airport proposal. There is no need for a new regional airport east of Toronto when Hamilton International is operating under capacity and provides a more economical and competitive option.

The Pickering airport proposal was first announced in 1972, but it was wisely cancelled in 1975. Why is the government allowing a bad idea to be resurrected?

The infrastructure for a thriving airport in Hamilton is already in place. A new highway in Hamilton leading to the airport has just been opened.

Rather than exploring an obviously bad idea, the government should reverse its decision and invest in Hamilton International through ACAP, the airport capital assistance program.

I particularly call on the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to put some action behind his words. He enjoyed media attention by announcing he was opposed to the Pickering project, yet when he was transport minister, he did absolutely nothing to halt work on the proposal.

Resources should be put into Hamilton International where a positive difference can be made, and not into an expensive boondoggle that makes no sense.

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I have made the Minister of Agriculture and the House aware, the greenhouse industry in my riding and around Canada was jeopardized this fall as a result of inspection issues caused by border delays. I have advised the minister, on behalf of the greenhouse industry, that a preclearance program for cut flowers is imperative for the survival of this industry in the future.

I acknowledge the government has announced funding for this program. However, this announcement is lacking in detail. Why has the government failed to deliver precise timelines for the implementation of this program?