Alan Tonks

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, from my remembrance, the member won by about 400 votes. I think that nearly 60% of the people in his riding voted against him.

I would like to know whether the member feels, now that he is the member, that he has a responsibility to at least articulate some of the concerns of those in his constituency who did not support him, who are more than voted for him. I wonder, having been armed with that, if he might be a little more charitable in his criticism of those who are attempting to represent a wider spectrum of interest within the country that would mirror the people and the groups who are in his own constituency.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the overview he gave from the perspective of his riding. He outlined in very compassionate detail the impact on his riding of the decline of the forestry sector. The member also talked about this structured and organized plan. He talked about young families who are depleting their RRSPs. He talked about a fund for affordable housing. My colleague related residential rehabilitation to dealing with climate change. He also talked about dealing with the equalization formula, something which Ontario also is concerned about. These are issues that transcend the normal partisanship that comes around separatist issues.

I wonder if he would like to comment further on the fact that the finance minister thanked the Bloc for the plan it put forward.

Does this not suggest that a coalition could be established on fundamental programs that are extremely important to Canadians and bring the country together? The coalition would not address the separatist issue but would address the essential issues that are of concern to all Canadians.

Does he think that the direction he outlined in that strategy is the direction in which all Canadians, including Quebeckers, want to see a government going?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain on a very wide-ranging commentary on the budget update.

My question is predicated on a call that I had from a small parts jobber who has been implicated and impacted by the recent Magna announcement that it will be laying off over 800 workers.

In meetings that we have had with the big three, they have indicated that after capital expansion and change in the assembly line, there are five new products that have been invested in and are ready to go. However, they are in danger because the government is focused on what the United States will do.

Perhaps the member would like to answer the question that I am trying to answer myself. Why would we wait to see what the United States will do on something that is so self-evident? The capitalization, the investment and the transformation have already taken place, the products are ready to go, and yet the government is not prepared. It still looks at it as a bailout as opposed to a stimulus that would actually bring those products on line, create the jobs and the investment that it carries with it and would answer my friend's issue in York South—Weston that he and his employees would still have jobs.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House is very interested in the full spectrum of concerns that the member has raised. He talked about the issues related to seniors and the economy in his constituency, about the confidence that people look forward to in the future, and about a prescription of action that would be required with respect to seniors, the guaranteed income supplement and the whole issue related to pensions.

In my riding, the issues related to jobs, apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships and training are also equally important. People are very concerned about that. I wonder if the member could expand a little bit. I know that in his area the economic downturn has affected the forestry industry and is even creeping into the mining community. I also wonder what actions the government has taken that have impressed him as prescriptions for creating high value-added activity, additional job activity and, in particular, investing in the housing market and affordable housing. There is a full spectrum of work-related initiatives that would help in this economic downturn.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has given a very insightful overview with respect to retraining and linking it, for example, in the technology areas, ethanol and wind farms. Certainly, coming from a manufacturing community with Sterling Truck, I appreciate that linking of opportunity and training with the changing economy.

My question is more in the area of the trades. We have had quite a bit of experience with the Construction Trades Association, with pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training, but not much was in the throne speech on the rehabilitation of old apartment buildings, new construction starts and more affordable housing. The linkage argument still carries. If we are to train young people, they have to be in the market, and then there is availability and supply and demand. Would he like to comment further? Does he see the government, in its budget, coming forward with more emphasis on housing?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think the House agrees with the points the member made with respect to the strength of the central government and the historic role. Primarily, from our experience in Ontario, that role has been one of contributing through equalization to the strength of the federation.

I wonder if the member could simply expand a little. Two of the programs that he talked about were the Canada Health Act and the employment insurance. Ontario does have an inequitable position as a result of changes in the equalization formula. I wonder if the member can see any hope for Ontario through the throne speech that the government is prepared to deal with that serious issue, the lack of equity in the present equalization formula.

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

Although I know it will be a great disappointment to my colleagues, I too will be withdrawing my name.

[Nuclear Liability and compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is on so many committees, but I am not sure of whether he was at the natural resources committee when minister appeared before it.

Two issues were raised, the first issue being the $600 million compensation cap that was placed through the legislation. I am not sure whether it was the member who asked the question, but the minister was asked why the government would put that cap on when a major nuclear incident would have such larger and more expansive implications geographically.

Is the member aware of what the answer was? What would the appropriate amount and mechanism be, if it were entrenched in the legislation, with which the New Democratic Party would be satisfied?

[Canada Elections Act, June 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the end of debate on Bill C-474, standing in the name of the member for Don Valley West, all report stage motions be deemed adopted, the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments, and be deemed read a third time and passed”.

[Canada Elections Act, June 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, that at the end of today's debate on Bill C-474, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, all report stage motions be deemed adopted, the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments and be deemed read a third time and passed.