Dean Allison

[Income Trusts, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is an uneasy nervousness, especially among seniors, regarding the current shadow hanging over income trusts. It is solely based on the government's recent decision. Or should I say “indecision”?

Seniors draw regularly from their investments to supplement their retirement and when the value of their investments drops so does their retirement income. In a recent email, a St. Catharines senior writes:

I am retired and depend on distributions from income trusts to supplement my pension. The remarks by the Finance Minister have confused the situation...At the present time, finances of individuals in my position are in limbo.

The finance minister's reckless move to avoid making a decision on new income trusts has had a detrimental impact on the nest eggs of seniors and ordinary Canadians saving for retirement. Let us call it what it really is: another Liberal tax grab.

With energy costs continuing to soar and winter fast approaching, this government has done nothing but offer the double whammy to our seniors: higher energy costs and higher taxes. It is time we stopped penalizing our seniors and started to give them the respect they so richly deserve.

[Question No. 123, September 26th, 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?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 122, September 26th, 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?

(Return tabled)

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the bigger questions I have is this. If there is no fear or no reason why we should be concerned, if there is no basis for our concern, and in many cases the government has tried to assure us that religious freedoms will be protected, then why did the Minister of Justice say in his speech that in every case religious freedoms would be trumped by human rights?

What we see right now is if it is a human right but it is not a religious right, those things do not matter. I have given a half a dozen examples. My colleagues have given many examples where people who have been in front of the courts have been discriminated against. They are being fined and dragged into lawsuits which are quite possibly costing them their homes, given the costs to defend these cases.

Right now individuals have religious choices, but their personal beliefs are being trumped by what society wants. We are not even at the point where we have changed the name. We have broadened the definition.

If it is a question of incorporating the rights or broadening the rights, why does this group not look at a new name? Why does this group not look at establishing something of its own. Marriage has been fully entrenched in our society for thousands of years?

In 1999 and 2003, 20 government members, including the member, voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. What has changed in his mind or the minds of his constituents? Why in 1999 and in 2003 was the traditional definition of marriage important but now, as we move forward in 2005, there is a difference. What has changed?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House again today to speak to Bill C-38. As I have previously stated, I am fully aware of both the privilege and responsibility that I have been given as a representative of the diverse communities and residents that compose the riding of Niagara West--Glanbrook. All my hon. colleagues in the House also have the duty to reflect the values and concerns of their constituents.

Each time I have risen to speak on the bill, I have clearly said that I will be voting against the legislation that will change the definition of marriage. In my vote I have faithfully taken 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 real concerns of Canadians, the issue of same sex marriage has evoked an outpouring of commentary.

The same sex marriage bill has inspired tremendous debate and considerations throughout all segments of my community. To date I have received feedback for up to close to 10,000 individuals from my constituency and thousands more from coast to coast on the definition of marriage.

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 a union between one man and one woman.

During the election campaign I promised my constituents that I would vote in support of this definition and that promise I have kept with them.

I have solicited the opinion of my constituents by asking them through news letters, emails and other correspondence and I would like to share the response. Almost 90% of my constituents are against changing the meaning of marriage, 9% support changing it and the remainder has no opinion.

Contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister with regard to anyone who does not support the legislation, the residents of my riding are Canadian and so are the millions of Canadians from coast to coast who oppose the legislation. Are their voices any less important than other Canadians? In my eyes, definitely not.

However, I am not so confident that all members of the House can look their constituents in the eye and claim that they wholeheartedly represent them. How long can the Liberal government claim that its is fixing the democratic deficit when it refuses to hear the voices that oppose it?

Just last week the government tabled the report on democratic reform which it stated was at the top of its priority list. It has stated that its action plan on democratic reform is based on three pillars of democracy: ethics and integrity, restoring the representative and deliberate role of MPs and accountability.

The Liberal government has failed miserably on all three counts. In the action plan the government has stated:

Democratic Reform will re-connect Parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of their constituents, by providing parliamentary committees with more resources to influence and shape legislation, and by requiring that Ministers are actively engaged with MPs and Committees on priorities and legislative initiatives.

What this means for individual Canadians is that the people they elect will be able to better reflect their views in the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual Members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change.

That is a quote from the report. From my time I have been here in the last year, that could not be further from the truth. Many committees have made many recommendations to the House that have been totally ignored or just shelved for a later point in time.

I would like to repeat one more time that I hope all members from all parties take this to heart. The government talks about the fact that democratic reform will reconnect parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of the constituents. What this means for individual Canadians is that people they elect will be better able to reflect the views of the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change. I am not exactly sure at what point in time Parliament strayed away from this democracy by honouring the wishes of Canadians, but now is the time that we need to restore democracy.

The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a minister of democratic reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society.

The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a Minister of Democratic Reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society. The fact is the Liberal government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, are not interested in restoring faith in democracy. They will even alienate their own beliefs along with their constituents' beliefs to ensure that they maintain whatever little power they may have left.

I am baffled that many members of the Liberal government who not so long ago spoke so fearlessly in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Now they immediately will do as they are told and vote for the bill.

It has been quoted before, but I would like to quote the speech of the hon. Deputy Prime Minister delivered in the House on September 2003 when she was the justice minister. She stated:

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. 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.

In free votes in 1999 and again in 2003, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister voted for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, as did many others in government. Yet she along with her cohorts will stand in the House again today, as she did last night, and force the will of the Liberal government on the Canadian people and vote for a bill that will reverse exactly what she fought so hard to preserve on two previous occasions. Maybe “fought” is too strong a word.

My intention is not to single out the Deputy Prime Minister. She is just one of the many in cabinet who publicly opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage in the past. In fact there are currently 20 Liberal members who in 1999 freely voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, who now vote to destroy marriage. There were 34 Liberals who have voted against the government. This also includes the current Prime Minister.

There could be many more Liberal members whose constituents oppose the legislation, but without a free vote, the voices of Canadians will be ignored and our democracy trampled on once again.

I applaud the hon. members who have put their political careers aside to truly represent what they and their constituents believe is right. They have sacrificed their aspirations for what is best for the country. Why will the Prime Minister not do the same thing?

It is rather unfortunate that the Prime Minister has given his cabinet an ultimate: Vote in favour of the government or lose your ministerial perks.

The NDP, a party which also claims it is the true voice of democracy, has also whipped its members into submission. The only member of that party who dared voice an opinion has been muted and has been told to sit on her hands during a vote on one of our society's fundamental institutions. This is just another example of the Liberal-NDP coalition forcing members to toe the party line. I will mention, though, the member did vote last night and I was encouraged to see that.

Coercion is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool of tyranny. All hon. members should resist the threats of having their political careers ended prematurely by voting against the bill. As elected representatives, we were sent to Ottawa for a specific reason: to be the voice of our constituents, to embody the wishes of the great people of this country and to protect their democracy and freedom.

The justice minister has presented the bill as a charter issue. He has said that it will give all people equality. He has stated that religious freedoms will not be affected by the passage of the bill. I would challenge him on this.

There are numerous instances that have already occurred which have put religious freedoms at risk. Scott Brockie owns a printing company called Imaging Excellence. In 1996 Mr. Brockie refused to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives on the basis that the cause of homosexuality was offensive to his religious belief. The CLG Archives filed a human rights complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging that Mr. Brockie discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. A board of inquiry, appointed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, found that Mr. Brockie did discriminate and fined him.

Then there is the case of Mr. Kempling. Chris Kempling is a teacher and a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was disciplined by a professional body, the B.C. College of Teachers, for writing letters to the editor of a local newspaper denouncing the school's teaching on homosexuality.

The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the discipline and said that Mr. Kempling was not entitled to protection. Mr. Kempling was not even working at the time.

I could mention Bishop Fred Henry as another individual, the Knights of Columbus and the list goes on and on. Bishop Henry said:

The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition.

It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders.

It is through their elected representatives that we must let the citizens of our great country be heard. The majority of Canadians have clearly stated that they want marriage to continue to be defined as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. When the vote is called, I would encourage all my colleagues to courageously stand and vote against Bill C-38.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

A case of wine, sorry; a case of beer is a bad example.

The other thing is in terms of different groups that have been critical with this budget and this particular deal. Once again the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been pretty vocal in saying that this deal does not complement the priorities of small businesses, which favour allocating the federal surplus to debt reduction and tax relief over additional spending. Small businesses are the engine of the economy. They create all the jobs. They are the ones that need the tax relief to be competitive in other parts in the world. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives raised concerns that reneging on corporate tax relief would jeopardize investment and jobs in Canada.

The problem is not that we have had some good years of financial success. Our concern is the kind of footing that we are putting ourselves on as we move forward. We really believe that tax relief would help make us more competitive and help us to continue to be competitive in this global economy.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a couple of interesting points to which I would like to respond.

The first one was about the implementation of this $4.5 billion ad hoc deal. The concern we have is that when the government went through the original proposal with Bill C-43, there were all kinds of discussions and consultations. The Liberals were very clear when we talked to them after the budget that there could be no tinkering, that there could be nothing done with this budget, that it would be absolutely unreasonable, it would be reckless. The finance minister said that there was no flexibility in looking at trying to change in the budget. I find it somewhat ironic today as we stand here to debate this additional ad hoc deal. We all know that the real reason this has happened was just to save the political hide of the Liberal Party, for it to continue to stay in power.

I guess the real question will probably be what will happen next when the NDP is done propping up the Liberal government. Will there be more reckless spending? Will the honeymoon be over and will we be back at the table?

The next point the member mentioned was that so many people support this bill, that so many people are in favour of it and they have done a good job. What we have in Canada in terms of where we are right now and where we have been for the last 12 years is missed opportunities. We have had tremendous opportunities. We could have done a lot better than we have done so far.

The analogy I use when I talk to people is that they have a case of beer in the fridge, but what they do not realize is they could have had a couple of cases of beer in the fridge. At some point in time we will have missed our opportunity and they are going to open the fridge and there will be no beer in there at all and then they will be very disappointed with what has happened.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House tonight to address concerns with Bill C-48. I refuse to call this bill the budget because it hardly reflects the intent of the original budget presented in the House.

The original budget bill had some key elements that were extremely important to improving the lives of Canadians, as well as strengthening our economy. Some of the critical elements that were fundamental in the original budget were cast aside in favour of what is being debated this evening.

Bill C-48 is not about improving the quality of lives for Canadians, giving our children a brighter future, or helping the environment. It is definitely not about giving our seniors what they were promised and worked so hard for. This bill is nothing more than a deal to keep the Prime Minister and his party in power for a little while longer. This is a deal to buy votes. In buying the votes of the NDP, the Liberal government has ignored the democratic responsibility to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is interesting to note that while the Liberal government has no moral dilemma in buying votes, the NDP also has no moral problem in being bought at the expense of Canadians. I find it interesting that the NDP has continually criticized the government on the democratic deficit and yet it is the one propping up the corrupt Liberal government.

In recent months the Prime Minister has stood before Canadians announcing deal after deal. These are not deals that will improve the lives of Canadians. It will only improve the life of the Liberal government. It is simply a deal with the devil. The Prime Minister used taxpayers' dollars to buy NDP votes and continues to use Canadians' hard earned money to maintain the little power he still has. If the so-called measures in Bill C-48 were truly in the best interests of Canadians, why were they not in the original budget?

The Prime Minister's recent spending spree, including spending involved in this bill, is not in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Prime Minister learn that governing is not about clinging to power? It is about giving Canadians the highest standard of living possible. The Liberal government is not interested in letting hardworking Canadians enjoy the fruits of their labour. The Liberals are interested in and have been successful at filling the pockets of their friends. Why will the Prime Minister not let Canadians hold on to more of their hard earned money?

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about an elderly couple living in my constituency, Kate and Bill Alsopp. They are fighting to maintain a decent standard of living. Kate and Bill have worked hard all of their lives to provide for themselves and their families. They supported their children when they were dependent upon them and worked hard so that they could enjoy their golden years.

The government of this country made a promise to Kate and Bill and other Canadians just like them. It promised all hardworking Canadians that their tax dollars would be there when they needed them most. The government promised programs that would allow seniors to maintain a high standard of living, yet the government has continually broken its promise. To Bill and Kate these promises mean very little any more. Let me provide one specific example of how the government has let Bill and Kate down.

Bill will wait for one full year before he receives the hip replacement surgery he needs. While the Liberal government has recklessly spent his and Canadians' tax dollars, Bill continues to wait for the surgery that he deserved a long time ago. When Bill needed it most, the government failed him.

The Liberals have not only failed seniors but our parents, children, veterans, low and middle income families, new Canadians, businesses, the military and many others. The worst of it all is that it is not only ignoring the voices of Canadians but ruining the finances of this country.

The proposed blank cheque budget, better known as Bill C-48, will not improve the lives of Canadians like Bill and Kate because it has no definite plan. In my past career as a small business owner, one of the greatest lessons I learned is that without a coherent and well thought out plan, a business is doomed to fail. With such failure, those who depend on the business will be left with nothing.

In Canada half of all small businesses fail within three years of start-up. The predominant reason for that failure is that they have no plan. The Liberal government refuses to understand the simple principle. When the Liberal government proposed the spending of billions of taxpayers' dollars without a plan, it is not the only one paying for these great mistakes. It will be hardworking Canadians who will be victimized by this reckless budget.

There is absolutely no logical reason why Canadians should be victims of their own government. Bill C-48 is truly an injustice to all hardworking Canadians. Canadians must be assured that every single tax dollar collected is directed in an open and transparent manner and with a sound plan behind it.

The Liberals have made it clear with this bill that they are not working in the best interests of Canadians. They have made it explicitly clear that they will take whatever measures necessary to preserve their government. When will the Liberals learn that government is not about trying to create legacy? It is about democracy and honouring promises.

All parties in the House claim to have the same objective which is to improve the lives of Canadians. The question is, which party has a plan that will actually accomplish this objective? The Liberal government has clearly shown that it is not interested in a plan. Liberals are more interested in patting themselves on the back for spending more and more money. It is for this reason that I question the Liberals' sincerity of achieving the goal of improving the lives of Canadians.

It is time for the Liberals to realize Canadians want a government that will plan for the future and not just spend for today. The Conservative Party of Canada understands the goal of all Canadians and knows what they want. The goal is simple. It is what all hon. members have been entrusted to do when they are elected to represent the great people of Canada. It is to better the lives of Canadians.

It seems like a simple goal which makes me wonder how it could be forgotten by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Conservative Party has a plan that is built around the fundamental principle of putting more tax dollars back in the pockets of Canadians where they belong. We will put Canadians and their needs first and foremost. We will ensure that every tax dollar spent will be spent in a wise and prudent fashion and we will provide Canadians with an accountable government they can be proud of.

We will continue to hold the Liberal government to account for its mismanagement and reckless spending. The Liberal government has stood before Canadians claiming to have solved issues such as the fiscal imbalance, lack of infrastructure for cities and the health care crisis. These announcements are only spending announcements. They are empty promises. Where can we find the plan that goes along with the billions and billions of dollars promised to fix the largest problems facing our country today?

I have yet to see these plans and Canadians continue to wait to see how the Liberal government will use their money to improve their lives. Canadians continue to pay some of the highest taxes among G-8 nations while their take home pay continues to decrease. The Liberal government is stripping more dollars out of the pockets of individuals and giving them less in return. The promises made to individual Canadians are not the only promises being broken. Promises are also being broken to the business community.

In the original budget the Liberal government promised to cut taxes for businesses. This tax cut was supposed to give businesses the opportunity to grow and thrive in a global marketplace. Canadian businesses have been at a competitive disadvantage for years because of overtaxation.

The excise tax, for example, on exported Canadian wine is but one of many examples of how the government has constrained the growth of our economy. The Prime Minister and his government expected Canadian wineries to pay tax on wine being exported to other countries while they allow international wines to be imported at a much lower rate. How is the industry expected to grow when small wineries cannot afford to pay this archaic policy?

Canada has been recognized in recent years as having some of the best wines anywhere in the world, yet the Prime Minister through unfair taxation is not allowing Canadian wineries to be competitive on the world market. Is it not the duty of the government to act in the best interest of our businesses? Why is the government then taking the obvious measures necessary to promote a healthy economy?

The original business tax cuts would have stimulated the economy, created new jobs and provided more incentives for businesses to remain in Canada, but the Prime Minister decided it was more important to spend money to make his party look good in the public eye. The wine industry as well as others will remain in the shackles placed on them so that the Liberals and their NDP cohorts can continue to run amok with the finances of this country.

The original budget was obviously flawed and lacked a coherent implementation plan, but it did address issues that are important to Canadians. The Prime Minister has manipulated the original budget so much that it no longer adequately addresses the needs of Canadians. Even worse, the billions and billions of dollars he has committed since the original budget bill was tabled have absolutely no implementation plan.

We cannot allow the Prime Minister to play politics with taxpayers' money. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars go to waste and stolen under the leadership of the Liberals through ad scam and other scandals. Millions more will go to waste if we do not see an implementation plan for the $4.6 billion promised in this bill.

It is for this reason and this reason only that I cannot and will not support this Liberal-NDP coalition deal.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at rural ridings or ridings that do not have access to major centres, there still needs to be choice and I do not believe that one size fits all for everyone.

We understand there is a day care system in place and that is great, that is fine. People need those as options. What we have been talking about is one size does not fit all. The member mentioned that there are different options in Quebec. We are proposing the different options, but we should still allow options for families. There are family members who want to look after their kids. We should not deny them that right and that opportunity. They should not be forced into another system.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the Liberals are finally getting it, that choice is what we have been talking about for some time.

The question I have is about this $10 billion black hole. We already know the Liberals have no idea how it will be paid for or who will be paying for it and how the system will be rolled out. It has been fairly misleading. The $5 billion is really just seed money to get started. Quite frankly, the $1 billion that I talked about, less than that, will not cover anything in the first year.

Once again I go back to what I said during my speech. We believe parents should have a choice. If parents wish to bring in local care providers, whether it be a neighbour down the street, an elderly woman, or whether they would like to have their mother or their mother-in-law involved, that is a choice they should have.

They should also have the benefit, whether it be a tax break or a tax incentive, as a result of not having a chance necessarily to be involved in a national day care program. Those options will not be available to everybody, depending on where they live.