Alan Tonks

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the question I would like to make it clear that the House, I think, is absolutely unanimous that these forms of absolutely preposterous activities taking place on our streets are totally unacceptable. We have seen very tragic results that have come about as a result of this kind of negligent and dangerous behaviour.

My question is on the preventive side. Throughout time, young people and people of all ages have been interested in tuning vehicles and in altering them in engineering terms. Some of us have gone and seen with great pride what people are capable of doing in terms of their innovative engineering capacities. Those are positive things but the outlet they have to then demonstrate what that capability is, is almost non-existent.

Law enforcement agencies are working, for example, around Mosport, and they are providing opportunities now for these young people, in a positive way, to go off the street onto the track to demonstrate their capabilities.

Does the member see that as a positive way of managing what has become a very serious issue? Is the government looking at any kinds of programs in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, service organizations and others that are now attempting to bridge a very profound social problem with some positive outlets that in fact would be even more than a deterrent? They would take those young people and get them into very positive endeavours around a sport that has been recognized over time.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for the Bloc on his overview with respect to Bill C-19. He has obviously done a great deal of research on this.

My question is with respect to Dominique Vaillancourt, who was quoted by the member. I think the comment was made through that quote, and I am taking this as my inference and I do not know if it is correct or not, that Mr. Vaillancourt suggested that there was an expansion of Bill C-19, which includes liabilities that may take place on private tracks. This goes somewhat beyond the initial parameters that the bill was purported and intended to deal with, which was street racing in public places.

I was taken by the member's insights with respect to young people who are looking for a constructive outlet to participate in road sport other than on public streets. Even local police enforcement agencies are working with young people through clubs and so on to try to steer them into a regulated environment where they can participate in a positive way in road sport.

If Mr. Vaillancourt is right, and my inference is that private tracks were included with respect to some liabilities, could the member indicate whether the bill is encompassing some private liabilities? Does he think this would not be constructive and helpful with respect to the approach he has suggested, that we take a more encompassing positive one, not just one that is obviously very intent on punishment?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public watching this are aware, by the comments made by the minister, of how important it is to avoid litigation unnecessarily and understand the implications with respect to the industry.

However, there must be another huge body of opinion that is concerned with the issues of precedence and rule of law and the notion that in a relationship with another country, a country with which we have 85% of our exports, we not find ourselves where there is no respect for that rule of law, sliding in that slippery slope on grease skids, and where there is retaliation in other sectors. I can see a large body of opinion looking at it this way, if there is not the kind of natural justice that comes along with the respect for the law.

We have gone through international tribunals. We finished with another international tribunal, the International Court of Appeal. It was my recollection that there was an attempt, without prejudice, to go through the American justice system, the courts of appeal, with respect to finding precedence whereby we could get a decision in the American courts.

Was that pursued? As we speak, is there any opportunity to pursue that? I think I have indicated how important it is to our public to be responsive and responsible to what precedent this might create in other sectors in the future?

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has already been asked the question about the relationship with municipalities under the joint emergency management plan. I take it the committee will be looking further into that. From my experience, municipalities have very comprehensive and integrated plans and they should be part of a comprehensive joint management plan.

I am sure many who are watching this debate have also been reminded that pandemics and bioterrorism are in fact very immediate risks and our constituents are very concerned. This legislation does not talk about that.

I am aware that the member has a very broad knowledge on that whole area. With respect to the matter of pandemic or bioterrorism, would he comment on whether he is satisfied that legislation comes to grips with that or should the committee broaden the investigation and the consultation on this legislation to encompass that very serious risk?

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that aspect of the previous Bill C-44. I take it that my colleague is. I would suggest that this issue be taken to the committee.

The role of public operating agencies, whether they are intercommuter or commuting longer distances, and within those major corridors connected by rail and shared corridors, be it high speed or interurban systems, cannot help but serve the country better. When we look at the Pacific Gateway concept there is the opportunity to connect up those hubs with the best transportation mode that connects up into the overall gateway.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the importance in terms of the basis of that question, an integrated transportation plan is based on the premise that the overall origin destination of goods and the transport of goods has to be balanced against the ability of the road system to distribute.

I think we all know, in urban areas, that rail has shifted to the periphery of the downtown areas. Intermodal connectors are very important to then bringing the ability of the road system to, one, have buses that can move along it, but also to have the trucking industry distribute the goods that the intermodal connectors would anchor.

What I was trying to say is that in the GTA, for example, there should be a master plan with respect to having each transportation system do what it is designed and engineered to do. If that is not the case, then there will be an increase in the hazards that accompany the use of the arterial road systems and road systems that are not built to carry heavy trucks. In fact, there should be an emphasis on intermodal connectors that would be part of an integrated plan.

The member is absolutely right from the premise he comes from. Canadians cannot help but be better served if the national government insists that there be partnerships across the country that plan their systems in order to achieve the objectives that the member has outlined.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would agree that the government should bring forward Bill C-11. Dealing with the transportation act and railway safety is an excellent opportunity for the public to engage, through the committee to which the bill will be referred, in a debate on some of the very serious issues that have evolved around railway safety and in fact around the whole matter of transportation planning in Canada.

The comments made by all of the speakers thus far are excellent points and provide guidelines for the committee to look at: matters related to sustainability, environmental planning, working with municipalities, the whole gamut of strategic planning and, most important, engaging Canadians in a major debate with respect to how important all transportation modes are and how the Parliament of Canada views the input from Canadians.

As an example of that, we are involved in the Pacific gateway discussions. Through those discussions, as a sort of strategic overview, to compare it to the present legislation, Parliament is attempting to galvanize the Canadian public to see the opportunities to have a competitive and integrated transportation system that will funnel into the major ports of Canada and revitalize and put a keen edge on our economic competitiveness in a changing global economic environment.

Having said that, I note that the task, the challenge, of Parliament is to shape the issues through this legislation such that the committee in fact can embrace Canadians and involve them in that discussion. There are two issues on which the legislation falls somewhat short, I think, and where the committee could perhaps improve the legislation.

There are two areas. First is the noble challenge and objective that is stated in the bill to achieve that competitive edge and to bring those modes together into an integrated transportation plan. The legislation outlines steps on how that in fact should be achieved. That is the first point. The second is that the bill acknowledges that private-public partnerships are going to be important with respect to the future possibilities of attracting capital to invest in our railways, our airport systems, urban transit and all forms of transportation.

However, I would like to share my experience with the House. A proposal that goes through York South—Weston and in fact goes right through the GTA really represents a case study for comparing what the legislation is saying and whether or not the legislation will improve what is happening in York South—Weston and the greater Toronto area.

For the information of members of the House, York South—Weston presently has a private sector proposal to share the Weston subdivision in Georgetown rail right of way for a Pearson Airport-Union link to operate at the same time as improvements to the GO transit system, which is the major inter-community commuter urban system in the greater Toronto area. At the first meeting, when people were made aware with respect to this proposal, there were over 2,000 people.

I have an invitation for the member of the government who stood up earlier. In answer to a question about how people should be consulted and whether they should be consulted, or whether they should be very happy that they live next to a railway line and should look at any changes as absolutely positive regardless of whether they create noise, environmental emissions and so on, he said we should just remind them that they live close to a railway line. I would invite him to tell that to 2,500 or 3,000 people who felt a little different about the process. I say that to point out that people have a right to have input and can make substantive improvements through that input.

It is against this background that we all agree that a strategic plan with respect to how the modes of transportation are integrated is in the interest of communities and in the interest of the country. I want to point out some shortcomings, though, with respect to how that in fact is supposed to be done.

With respect to the present proposal that is going through the greater Toronto area, as I have described, there was very little initial discussion with the community. There was no talk of how the federal-provincial environmental assessment process should work. There was no notification that there was a private sector proposal and what its advantages were against a public sector proposal that would utilize the railway.

The reason it did not happen is that there was no integrated plan from the municipality or the transportation authority that would act as a guideline for the government to make a decision as to whether there should be a consultation at the beginning of the process. None of that was available.

The onus is on local government to make available what its integrated plan is. That was not there. The government should have insisted that this be presented. Otherwise, we are building roads to everywhere but we are not being tactical or strategic in terms of the utilization of the resources that are being made available or are asked for from the public, in this case the railways, to make their lands available for the use of this private sector proposal. That is the first thing.

When I look at this legislation, I see it as being very loose in terms of the role of municipalities when there is an application for a private sector proposal. There is very little in the way of rules or the availability of an integrated plan that would guide the government or, in the case of the railways, the railways, in deliberating whether that is in their interest or in the national interest.

As for the legislation stating that every three years the minister shall prepare a plan and report reviewing the state of transportation, it is not realistic for the minister responsible to then have another eight years in order to come back and make recommendations and so on. I think the immediacy of this challenge requires much tighter timeframes.

I want to take the balance of my time not only on that requirement to have an integrated plan, but to look at the section that deals with the process of public-private partnerships. Under proposed subsection 53.1(1) “every person is required to notify the Commissioner of Competition” that they intend to present an application for a private sector transaction. In proposed subsections 53.1(4) and 53.1(5), it is stated that if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, the minister simply has to notify the company or whatever that such is the minister's opinion. This does not delineate the degree of public consultation that must take place.

To go on to proposed subsection 53.1(5), the bill then states that if the minister is of the opinion that there is public interest involved, “the Minister may direct the Agency to examine those issues under section 49 or appoint and direct any person to examine those issues under section 7.1 of the Department of Transport Act”.

The point that I am making against what is happening in York South—Weston with respect to a private sector initiative, which may or may not be a good initiative, and there are many who feel it is not, is that there is not the same degree of due diligence on the minister to state what the public interest is and whether the private sector is able to meet that public interest requirement.

Those are the points that I believe the committee members should take into consideration. I hope that they will reach out and look at some case studies of private sector applications that are made, so that the legislation could be tightened up, both in terms of the requirement for integrated transportation plans and the process of notifying the public and protecting the public interest.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Lord Acton who said that we cannot legislate ethics and that we cannot legislate integrity. I believe those are the components that come into a decision with respect to accountability to our constituencies.

The bill may not legislate that but it behooves us all to take wise counsel in terms of the things we do. We are judged by our constituents on that basis.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the several years that I have been in the House I have never experienced anything like that. I was concerned that the hon. member across the floor was making a gesture but I am glad it was just three minutes.

I would like to focus on one aspect of the accountability bill that comes from the motivation of the government and the reinstitution of the Office of the Comptroller General as a result of the hearings that went on during the sponsorship debacle.

The part of the bill that is most effective and which bridges with the hearings that were conducted by the public accounts committee concerns the issue of the budget officer. It seems to me that it is the entrenchment, through the office of the budget officer, of the responsibility of oversight on the committee structure of the House.

Although Justice Gomery made a wide variety of recommendations, the one recommendation that hearkens back to his investigation through many days of hearings was related to how the accountability loop, which gives more strength to the committee structure and parliamentarians to ensure there is accountability, is closed. I think, through the budget officer, there is the opportunity to do that.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the interjection, could we continue debate until we have had that resolved.