Dean Allison

[Small Business, June 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Governor General highlighted our government was here for all Canadians.

My question is for the new Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. What steps does this government plan to take to reduce red tape so Canadian small business can focus their attention on growing their businesses and creating jobs.

[Election of Speaker, June 2nd, 2011]

Let me begin by offering my sincere congratulations to all my esteemed colleagues on their election to this distinguished place. To those returning, welcome back.

I wish to welcome those who are in this House for the first time.

The Canadian people have chosen each individual in this room to represent them. With that endorsement comes an incomparable level of duty and responsibility. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians have spoken and expect each of us to work in their best interests by coming together to make this historic 41st Parliament not only work, but also work well.

And that is what we must do.

We have an opportunity and, indeed, a duty to transcend perfunctory courtesies and bring back to this great chamber a level of honour and respect befitting Canada's House of Commons.

I challenge each of you to consider your role as a member here.

I challenge you to consider not only how you perceive your responsibilities but also how you are perceived by those who have placed their trust in you by giving you the honour and the privilege of working in this hallowed place to the benefit of all Canadians.

By nature and by duty, we are all fiercely loyal to our beliefs and our political leanings, but as individuals and as representatives of our constituents, our conduct should be no less than exemplary. The political composition of this House embodies the great democratic values that are the foundation of Canada. They reflect the many different interests that naturally exist across our great country.

As we work to advance these interests, we must remember that this is not the time for political posturing and self-aggrandizement. The work of this chamber is greater than merely the sum of its parts.

If selected by you to serve as your Speaker, I would uphold the time-honoured traditions of this chamber. I would call for thoughtful discernment and appropriate consultation, and would then execute all the duties of the position to the best of my ability.

As Speaker, I would employ all means within my capacity to maintain the sanctity of this place, especially when it relates to members' decorum. It is ultimately up to each hon. member, however, to make the conscious decision and exercise the appropriate level of professionalism, respect and restraint.

As elected representatives of the Canadian people, we all share the privilege and fundamental right to freedom of speech in this place: the right to speak without fear of barrier, the right to express any opinion or to speak on any matter that we consider to be in the interests of our constituents or the country as a whole.

However, with the right to freedom of speech comes great responsibility, responsibility to our hon. colleagues and, indeed, responsibility to the institution and the rules of the House.

It is the duty of the Speaker to ensure that the right of free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent. This is accomplished by presiding over debate in the House and interpreting and enforcing all rules and practices. The Speaker is to preserve the order and decorum in the chamber, which is tantamount to the success of Parliament itself.

As members know, the Speaker is also the chief administrative officer of the House and in this capacity requires a cognizant stewardship as well as experience and capacity to execute these duties. As well, the Speaker has the honour to represent Parliament in its relations with persons and authorities outside of this Parliament, and in this capacity the Speaker must succinctly convey the principles, jurisdictions and views held by Parliament.

Hon. members of this place, today I stand before you humbly.

I submitted my candidacy for the office of Speaker because I want the honour of serving you.

I entered political life over a decade ago with a desire to serve. During my tenure in this place, I have worked diligently on behalf of my constituents. I have served my party, both in opposition and on government benches. I have served the House in the capacity of chair on many committees where, I hope my colleagues will agree, I have always sought to be fair and impartial, and sought consensus among all members. I have always sought and will continue to seek ways to build a better Parliament and a better Canada.

I am here to advocate for the support of all members to be selected as Speaker. As Speaker of the House, I will continue to serve members of Parliament and the people of Canada, for this is the primary function of the position.

I have the necessary experience. I have the required talents and abilities.

I wish to serve.

Now, all I need is the support of the members. Thank you for your consideration

[Committees of the House, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the situation of persons with albinism in Tanzania.

[Fairness for Victims of Violent Offenders Act, March 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to learn in this place that we always need to beware of a member of Parliament who says, “I support this bill in principle, but--”.

I just want to make a couple of quick comments to my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering, who tried to somehow liken this bill to having something to do with California or Florida or Newt Gingrich. This has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

This bill has to do with fairness for victims. That is what this bill is all about. I take some offence that my colleague from across the way could suggest that this has something to do with U.S.-style justice in any way. This is really about fairness for victims of violent offenders. It does not get any simpler than that.

Let me just talk about the four things that this bill proposes to do to amend the CCRA.

First, it would amend section 123 to increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of parole in the case of offenders serving a sentence for an offence involving violence. This would increase “within four years” from the current “within two years”.

Second, it would amend section 131 to increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of statutory release for offenders who cause death or serious harm to another. For example, for an offence involving violence, it would increase “within two years” from the current “within one year”.

Third, it would amend section 140 to ensure the victim's right to present a victim impact statement is enshrined in law, so the National Parole Board must consider it as part of its hearings. It would also amend section 140 to ensure that in the event victims cannot or chooses not to attend a parole hearing, to allow the victims to use any commonly available form of audio or video format to make their statement. As a result, the act would be modernized to account for the proliferation of digital and video formats available today. Having a choice will help ease the parole process on victims and their families.

Fourth, it would amend section 142 to allow victims increased access to offender documents related to an upcoming parole hearing.

Just to be very clear, that is what this bill proposes to do.

I am pleased to rise today to talk to this bill put forward by the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, whom I am proud to call not just a colleague but a friend. The hon. member has always done a great job representing his constituents and he should be commended now for bringing forward a private member's bill that gives a voice to victims of crime.

The short title for Bill C-620 is fairness for victims of violent offenders act. I believe he has struck the right balance in doing just that. In reading over this bill, I am impressed with the positive steps it proposes ensuring that victims of crime have their interests taken into consideration during the process of parole hearings.

What a concept. Let us think about that, that we would actually take into consideration victims of crime. I think this is a very good idea.

This is not to say that the possibility of parole will be infringed upon for those who the system deems to have been rehabilitated. Indeed, one of the cornerstones of our justice system is the belief that criminals can and should be rehabilitated, so that they can re-enter society as productive citizens.

However, to force victims of a violent crime to relive the dramatic effects of the act by requiring them to face the perpetrator of that crime time and time again during parole proceedings is not, I think, what our justice system is about. Our system should not seek to put victims through a process that at the end of the day only causes them further pain and suffering.

For this reason, I applaud Bill C-620 as put forward since it seeks to provide different avenues for victims to participate in the parole process that are less difficult for them on an emotional level. It also seeks to give the National Parole Board greater latitude through lengthening the time in which a mandatory parole review must occur. Of course, this bill is given ever greater credibility since it derives from a sincere desire to have the greater share of the burden shifted from the victim to the perpetrator.

Indeed, as the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale noted in his remarks, the office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has provided the disturbing statistic that under our current system, victims pay 67% of the costs of a crime. Simply put, this is not acceptable.

I do not see how justice is being properly served through our current system that places an inordinate amount of pressure upon the victims of violent crime. Changes need to be made to take into account the traumatic circumstances that the current system demands that victims relive, time and time again.

That is why I feel that one of the most rational aspects of the bill before the House is the part that provides victims the opportunity to supply their remarks in any commonly available media format. This avenue should, without a doubt, be made available to victims should they choose not to attend a parole hearing of the individual already responsible for so much of their physical and mental anguish. This would be in addition to the written statement that the victim, under the bill, would be able to provide and be able to have the National Parole Board legally obliged to consider during the course of the hearing. Most importantly, this option gives victims and their families the choice of avoiding having to relive their experiences by not having to attend the hearing in person.

This in and of itself speaks volumes to the bill's intent of reducing the trauma that victims of violent crimes are forced to go through with each parole hearing. Indeed, the bill goes beyond simply providing new venues for victims and putting new regulations in place for the parole board, but ensures that victims of crime are accorded the dignity they deserve.

I see the bill as an attempt to protect the families who have had their children taken from them by violent and malicious killers. The bill is for the survivors of those violent crimes, for those haunted by memories of assault and those having to live with the knowledge of their families' tormentors remaining unrepentant of their cowardly acts.

In speaking to the bill I tried to imagine what it must have been like for those individuals to have their family members brutally murdered by an unapologetic murderer like David Shearing, to have to face the person who caused so much pain and suffering to their loved ones, to have to relive that experience every two years, with the threat of that person being released into society once again a very serious possibility. That is not fair to victims. That is not what I envision when I hear the talk about balance in our justice system.

The particular individual I just mentioned, David Shearing, was found guilty of the murder of a British Columbia couple who was camping with their daughter and their son-in-law as well as the children in 1982. Shearing shot everyone, save for the two pre-teen girls, whom he kept alive for nearly a week to sexually assault the older daughter before killing them both and burning the bodies of the whole family in an attempt to cover his tracks.

I can barely fathom the pain the family of these victims had to go through during the process that followed, the police reports, the trial hearings--

[Petitions, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition calls on Parliament to enact legislation to protect human life from the time of conception until natural death.

[Petitions, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the next two petitions are identical to the ones I presented previously in the House.

The petitioners call on Parliament to take all necessary steps to stop the Internet as a medium for distribution of repulsive victimization that is called child pornography.

[Petitions, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions.

The first petition is signed by Canadians who are calling on the Canadian government to recognize the growing incidents of violence against public transit, school bus, paratransit and city transit operators affecting their safety and that of the travelling public of Canada.

They request that the Criminal Code be amended to give further protection to the hard-working essential members of our community.

[Anaphylaxis, March 21st, 2011]

Agreed.

[Anaphylaxis, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to highlight that even though there has been an amazing amount of work done at the local level, this is an initiative that goes from coast to coast.

One of the things I wanted to touch on before I go back to the great local support is that Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative is an advocacy group that has moved forward all families to talk to all members from all parties. This is an initiative that has been moving forward from coast to coast, from B.C. all the way to the east coast.

It is always great having a local initiative talking to the importance of an issue. As members of Parliament, one of the things we find important when a new issue comes up is that we want to understand and be encouraged by the fact that local people are concerned with the issue.

It is with that in mind that I think NASK has done a great job informing not only the members here in Niagara but their counterparts across the country. Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative has worked just as hard on this issue to coordinate efforts amongst all parties and all members to educate us, so that we could move forward with this initiative.

[Anaphylaxis, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, most people who are affected are children. I do not think most parents are concerned at this stage that it is not on the beer labels.

However, we continue to work with and engage all interested stakeholders. We believe this is important. As we continue to move forward, we did not want this to be the holdup. It has taken some time to get this done. We wanted to move forward with concrete steps because we believe this is so important for our children.

Let us get this dealt with. As we move forward, we will have an opportunity to continue consulting to get that taken care of.