Alan Tonks

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for a very comprehensive overview with respect to Bill C-37.

I understand that the committee travelled from coast to coast to coast in a very onerous and feverish exercise to gain advice and direction from the general community, notwithstanding the financial institutions community.

The member referred to an issue which is very top of mind with people not only in my community but communities across the country, and that is the issue of identity and mortgage fraud. It would appear to me that if Bill C-37 was an attempt to streamline the relationship between consumers and financial institutions, this particular area would have received more attention in terms of legislative changes and recommendations thereto.

I would like to ask the member what kind of discussion, if any, took place at the committee. Why, in his opinion, did the committee not come forward with recommendations as opposed to having to make amendments that were declared out of order? In fact, if they are out of order as has been declared, what is the follow-up the House could take in terms of dealing with a subject that is of extreme concern?

Not only do the banks share some responsibility, but I would suggest the legal profession shares a great deal of responsibility because innocent victims of this type of fraud could be anywhere in this country. It has happened in my riding and I am sure the member can give other examples.

Was there any discussion with respect to identity and mortgage fraud? What is the follow-up that he would recommend, or from his party's perspective, that would allow the House to address the matter?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have carefully followed the line of reasoning the member has put forward and I must say that I find it very compelling where he alludes to ex parte orders and the general application of the rule of law where within a reasonable period of time one who is accused for alleged criminal activities has the absolute right to confront those who are making the allegations within a reasonable format.

I realize that this particular legislation balances out the higher interest with those individuals but I do not understand that. I wonder if the member could help the House understand in terms of natural law, the right for a balanced and fair hearing and due process, how this legislation can be charter compliant when the charter has from time to time adjudicated on the rights of individuals under similar circumstances as they are placed on the fulcrum of public debate with respect to the higher community interest.

How, in the member's view, can this legislation be charter compliant? I really have not been able to understand that and perhaps with the background he has he could take the opportunity to outline that for the House.

[Income Tax Act, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, given that the subject of today's debate deals with the financial tribulations of young Canadian athletes, I would like to pause for a moment or two, if I could, and begin my remarks with an appropriate salute to a fallen soldier.

Yesterday, Canada lost one of three remaining veterans of World War I, Lloyd Clemett. Lloyd was a resident of Toronto and first enlisted in the Canadian Forces an incredible 91 years ago.

As I understand it, the bill before us was initiated through the efforts of a Saskatchewan boy of high school age.

Lloyd Clemett was just 16 years old when he volunteered for action and was eventually sent to the front lines in France. His valiant service to the country was lauded and recognized in his time and should be now, for now it falls on us to ensure that his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Today, just as in the time of Lloyd Clemett, young men and women are apt to pursue their dreams against all odds, be it on an ice rink in rural Saskatchewan or on a basketball court in downtown Toronto. The House should be ready to affirm the pursuit of sport for our youth and remove any barriers that might stand in their way.

The act before us deals with the issue of young athletes billeting their way into rural escapes to pursue the games they love.

In and around my constituency, many young athletes arrive on a daily basis. Some are supported by parents and some are lucky enough to be sponsored or championed by large or local businesses but others face financial hardships and paying their own way as they balance school responsibilities and sport.

In rural parts of my province, the latter situation is the most common. In parts of the country, where a metropolis of opportunity is not looming, it is even more unusual to find student athletes who are as confident with their finances as they are with their hockey stick or baseball glove.

Young athletes who assume part time jobs while living in communities that have adopted them should not be further burdened by a tax system that penalizes them for their sacrifice.

The House must give support to this bill but we must also ensure that it serves a greater good for athletes of all kinds, with abilities at all levels and in cities and communities all across the country. We are all well aware that star athletes and sports prodigies have an easier time making ends meet than the stalwart and dedicated sportsmen and women who still play for passion.

While it has been and will always be in our best interest to foster the best of the best, and while our society will always be drawn to the extraordinary acts of athletic achievement, the intent of the bill seems to salute the hard-working yet unheralded athletes.

There is something about the purity of sport that inspires us to forget our daily troubles and escape into the games we played as youths.

While I am not as quick as I once was on my skates, I know the joy of a hockey rush and, on the other hand, the solitude that can only be found at the lonely end of the rink. The lessons and benefits of sport are unique and invaluable. Amateur sports and amateur athletes deserve all the support the House can give.

I believe the bill, subject to the proper and traditional scrutiny, is a good first step but a first step that can meet the criteria for affirmation of the House. In fact, it would be hard to argue against the basic thrust of this proposal which seeks only to relieve amateur athletes of an undue tax burden.

I would like to direct members' attention to the comments which were made by my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. He pointed out in a detailed way some of the shortcomings of the present tax regime that purports to support amateur sport and that definitely improvements need to be made, as other members have attested to.

Over the course of this debate we should also make it clear that we in the House recognize the sacrifice and hard work being done by those who billet and house these athletic travellers. Without the generosity of families who open their homes to players of hockey, lacrosse and so many other sports, the vibrancy of sport in Canada would be greatly reduced.

By being so accommodating and welcoming, these billeting families are helping to improve the situation of Canadian athletes and Canadian sport itself. I wish to applaud these generous citizens. I am confident that all members of the House will join with me in that recognition.

When an athlete is provided with funds from a team that is only generating revenue by way of ticket sales and gives those funds to the family that is hosting him or her, it should be a taxless exercise. Surely the sacrifice is thankless enough.

Apart from the families and the athletes, we must also consider the coaches. I recently met with Clifford Linton, a dedicated parent and coach from my riding who represents concerned parents and athletes. He expressed to me and proved with appropriate documentation the huge disparity that exists between the cost to train an athlete and the funding available from the government.

In addition to the unusually high costs associated with children in sport, the government also requires that any athlete who wishes to represent Canada in international competition must pay a fee to Athletics Canada. In one instance where two junior athletes were fortunate enough to win the right to represent Canada at the world championships in Beijing, their chance of a lifetime was nearly cancelled by a $9,400 total expense. There comes a time when the coaches and athletes at Canada's highest level can no longer ask their friends and families for support and the government must lend a helping hand.

Any nation can trace its sporting history back to its early recollections. In Canada we have such a rich history of sport: Algonquin lacrosse matches that amazed the early Europeans; Royal Military College students playing what is considered the first ever hockey game with students from Queen's University. Our history books tell us that John Kennedy and Lester Pearson were united by their professions, of course, but formed a much more personal bond over their shared love of baseball.

Sport is a timeless and valuable aspect of our history. There is no bond across the social milieu that is greater. We can all sit in an arena or stadium and be united by our love of the hometown team or of our hatred for the bitter rival. It is sport that truly brings out the best in us and the best of us.

This bill has noble intent and with some enhancements could provide both substantive financial support and reaffirm our understanding of the role sport plays in our Canadian way of life.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of undocumented workers, I think we would all laud the temporary foreign workers program. My colleague also indicated other programs on which we were acting, but invariably it comes back to the fact that we cannot break the queue.

We have undocumented workers, and there is an absolute need there, good solid Canadians who are trying to provide for their children, their families. They make a great contribution. However, if we have a program that is going to deal with the backlog of undocumented workers, we are breaking the queue.

Could the member respond to that? What would be a two-pronged strategy that would take into consideration what the queue is and how can we deal with those who want to come to Canada and at the same time deal with those who want to stay? What would the strategy be to come to grips with this issue, instead of pointing fingers back and forth about why these people are here, what will we do with them, they should be deported and so on, all of which are unsatisfactory responses?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members in the House appreciate the broad array of backstop programs that are provided to seniors and those on fixed incomes but the thrust of the NDP's motion is aimed at those who are not making, what I would describe, which I think is accurate, a minimum fair wage.

In region after region, charitable organizations, like the United Way, have done an analysis that indicates that the gap in the general market basket, so to speak, the food basket for those who are at minimum wage, is widening. The ability to even get food is requiring the working poor to go to food banks across the country. Surely that is anathema to us in our civil society.

The member and his party have articulated the relevance of the guaranteed annual income supplement as it applies to seniors. Would he feel that it would be a more equitable approach, notwithstanding the validity of the approach taken by the NDP in my mind, to look at that kind of mechanism, a guaranteed annual wage, in particular as it would work through the taxation system, the linkage of which his party is very much in favour of, that would work toward the introduction of that kind of universal, right through the taxation system for the working poor?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the question that was asked from the opposite side with respect to the negative impact that this approach, suggested by my colleague in terms of the minimum wage, would have on small business.

I would like to ask the member, if that premise were true, and I would dispute it, what about taking the approach that would more broadly tax large corporations and then applying that to a national income supplement to those who have very low disposable income?

[Climate Change, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week I was privileged to attend, along with other MPs, the G-8 + 5 Legislators Forum in Washington, D.C., where the world's governments affirmed that climate change remains at the forefront of global consciousness.

German chancellor, Angela Merkel, made a keynote address to the session outlining the EU's priorities on climate change. Key business leaders, like Sir Richard Branson, also attended and added their influential voices to the discussion. The presence of banking and business leaders served to underscore that major stakeholders in every political and private field now understand the urgency of this issue of global warming and climate change.

As China, India and other developing countries continue to expand their economies and emissions, we in this country must serve as a model to the world, a model for sustainable development.

Canada can be a leader and it is time for all parties to cut the hot air. It is time for Canada to take leadership and act.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's overview with respect to the partnership fund. I appreciate also the thrust of his comments that the initiative taken by the Bloc with respect to the funding to bolster Kyoto strategies in the province of Quebec is worthy of support.

However, while my colleague has stated the broader context for the partnership fund very well, I would like to give him the opportunity to expand on that a little, because I am not sure the tremendous work that went into the partnership fund is fully understood by Canadians or even by members of the House.

To illustrate that, I would like to point out that budget 2005 had booked $250 million for those kinds of projects across the country, projects that would be partnerships between the federal and provincial governments. An additional $1 billion was in the green budget to expand upon that and we know that certainly did not go ahead. Also, it was evident that the province of Ontario was written to by the Minister of Finance to confirm that he was reneging on $5.6 billion in funding as part of the commitment of the Canada-Ontario agreement.

Does the member see that even to support the Quebec initiative is very, very far removed from both the spirit and the very comprehensive nature across this country of what that partnership fund was designed to do, which was, in a visionary way, to attempt to establish a very broad, sector by sector, province by province comprehensive strategy to get buy-in on a Kyoto strategy?

I would like the member to comment not only with respect to where he would like to see the support for Quebec, but also with respect to where he could see a real partnership fund progressing if it were within the context of the approach, both in spirit and in strategy, that had been put forward by the previous Liberal government.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the whole notion of ad valorem taxes as they compare with progressive improvements to be made to an income tax regime have been with us as long as I can remember. One is caught in a trap if one starts to argue the qualities of one over the other, when in fact I think Canadians generally would accept the assumption that a tax that is progressive to the extent that it is aimed at and works for those wage earners and salary brackets in the lower income percentages is one that works for them.

While I did not have time to go on with respect to the comparison of the GST ad valorem approach as opposed to income tax, I think my colleague can certainly draw the inference that I particularly, and I think our party, support the fairness with respect to using the income tax as the basis for equity for and fairness to Canadians. That is not to say that the GST or ad valorem taxes do not have their place, but we should remember that the very people for whom we propose to use the funds that come from that source are the ones who will be harmed by it in the end. They are the ones who are least able to afford the luxury goods and the big ticket items that, for example, the GST as a tax is aimed at. It is counterproductive.

However, that is not to say, and it is certainly not to detract from this, that all governments should not be attempting to reduce the burden. I personally and our party, I know, favour using the income tax as the most fair and equitable way to achieve that end.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that I also wanted to mention but had not was the provision with respect to HST-related rules. The government of Nova Scotia limits the availability of the current Nova Scotia first time buyers' rebate. I know that my colleague was not referring to this, but this is an incentive within the bill that will be targeted at low income wage earners.

To get to the point of the question, it is a question of equity. It is a question of what will be an incentive to those who need it most. The EnerGuide program was one that under the previous Liberal regime in fact was targeted. In its implementation, it was taken up by thousands of Canadians who fell within those income brackets. This was an incentive for them to purchase green products and to renovate and upgrade the standards of equipment in their homes, from furnaces through to laundry machines and so on.

The member is right in the inference that he draws. There still is a lot of work to be done with respect to the EnerGuide type of approach and trying to focus it on wage earners in this country who most need the incentives.