Alan Tonks

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, they characterize the whole Liberal Party as dishonest. At least the member, if it is true, was only alleging that one member was dishonest.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with great interest. I appreciate the sincerity and the depth of his comments, but I would just note that the characterization of Kyoto and the implications of climate change are far more than are given justice when it is suggested that they were developed on the back of a napkin.

I have a question for the member. The best available science indicates that climate change is related to human activity. That is an established scientific point of view that is sustained by all credible organizations internationally. Kyoto is the only international treaty we have that calls for integrated, sustained and international action. The previous government, it has been shown, was unsuccessful to some extent, but it put forward a plan with memoranda of understanding with the automotive sector, with targets that had been established and with a plan through technology and through partnerships with provinces. There was a whole series of initiatives.

Does it make sense for us at this point to try to reinvent the wheel in light of the compelling evidence put forward? At least Kyoto is an international regime that would take us in the same direction to do something which would change the legacy that most assuredly is going to be disastrous in terms of natural disasters. We have seen the evidence. Does it not make sense to at least agree to the treaty and continue our initiatives within the framework that has been provided, inasmuch as there is no other international framework that exists?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, from the comments that have been made by the Minister of the Environment and those made in the press, it appears that the government is seized with the objective to deal with smog and to have clean air. I think the whole House would find that objective laudable. The issue is not just smog and clean air, but climate change and that it is a climate change plan that we need before us on the scale that Kyoto and its objectives have been framed. Would the member care to comment on that?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was recently announced that the government was supporting the initiative to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. As I pointed out in a recent statement in the House, I indicated that at a recent meeting of the parliamentarians associated with the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum it was unanimously agreed that climate change could be best addressed through support of the international treaty, Kyoto.

Would the minister please outline what she thinks is the definitive difference in terms of the objectives of being part of the Asia-Pacific partnership and how the government's strategy is in effect, through that organization, going to address climate change?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her overview and her analysis of the difference between institutional day care and community based day care.

Could the member just take the opportunity to point out to the opposition what the substantive difference is in the development of a community based day care system and why it works better in respect to meeting the overall needs of children in the environment within which it functions?

[The Environment, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government is abandoning Kyoto and instead joining with what the Globe and Mail has called its “more lax” rival: the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

Members of the House recently attended the 12th annual General Assembly of Asia-Pacific Parliamentarians, where it was unanimously resolved that meeting Kyoto commitments should be the world's priority.

Smog, clean air and sustainable economies are the primary objectives of the Asia-Pacific partnership and worthy of support. However, the Asia-Pacific conference declaration states that only through support of Kyoto and its international action will the escalating natural disasters that are the result of climate change be avoided.

I hope the government will agree with the Asia-Pacific parliamentarians that support for the Asia-Pacific partnership and Kyoto is not an either-or situation. Kyoto is our best and perhaps last chance for international action on climate change.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I am very impressed and moved by not only the member's knowledge and desire to understand what is happening in Darfur but, in his analysis, to find out what our role would be if we were to actually send troops. That was what our colleague on this side was speaking about in terms of avoiding the kind of military intervention that is occurring in Iraq.

As I understand it, the most recent major condition that has been put forward by the Khartoum regime is the integration of the armed forces that would include rebel forces, those who in fact, as the member has outlined, are engaged in the kind of activity that we deplore.

I wonder if the member would outline what the two RCMP officers are doing and whether he sees a role that the Canadian military could play in terms of helping the Khartoum regime to meet that condition, which is the integration of the forces. It seems that is a major hurdle that has to be overcome. I wonder if the member would expand on that.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. I appreciate very much the point the member has made with respect to building accountability into programs through the budget and the estimates. The member suggested that the House may not have the responsibility to the extent of making sure that money that is budgeted for is spent on programs. That happened with respect to the Walkerton debacle where money was not spent on programs with respect to water quality and we know the result.

How does the member feel that accountability can be built in where programs are delivered? If they are not delivered, would we be made aware of that through the appropriate structure, be it the committee or whatever?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who just spoke was referring to one who is in the chamber who served as the mayor of Toronto. Being one who was present, and I think he was looking in this direction, I would like the record to be correct. In the interests of not maligning those who really were the mayor of Toronto, I was the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto and I appreciate my colleague giving me that recognition.

The member spent a great deal of time talking about floor crossing, and I do believe that is important, but I think the House would also be interested in what his party has talked about as democratic accountability and open government.

My colleague also has served on the public accounts committee. From the perspective of members of the House who want to see more accountability through this House and through elected members, and based on his experience and coupling that experience on the public accounts committee with the recommendation to establish a parliamentary budget authority, which I take would reinforce the efforts of committee to hold the executive into account and the administration into account, I wonder if the member would give us his opinion.

Would he give us his opinion with respect to his experience on the public accounts committee and whether that recommendation, and through the public accounts committee, would even further close the accountability loop in a manner that we would all like to see?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question will give the member the opportunity to follow up on the theme he was just engaged in. That was the role of the Auditor General with respect to reporting, as is her responsibility, on matters of internal and external audits and the whole role that she plays with respect to making the functions of government, particularly the comptroller general and the role that is now going to play, in closing the accountability loop. I appreciated everything the member has said.

A great deal of this legislation focuses on the accountability of the institutions and structures through appointing watchdogs of various degrees, but at what point is there a crossover where we, as the members of Parliament through our structures, for example the committees, can hold the executive power to account? At what point is there a crossover? Does the member see that in this legislation, or are there further amendments that would reinforce the kind of accountability that exists among the policy makers and those who are elected to develop policies and those in the government who are charged with responsibilities to be accountable at the departmental level?