Alan Tonks

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the member may look to the Prime Minister's task force on women entrepreneurs.

If the member is concerned with respect to the number and the statistics related to those women who are embarking on their own employment in an entrepreneurial way, those statistics may mirror the statistics I have given, that women in fact are above the norm, even those returning to the workforce. They are helped and supplemented by the improvements that have been made to the EI benefits that I have outlined in my remarks.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question on behalf of the hon. Secretary of State.

Overall the EI system is working and it is there for whom it is intended. My remarks will give a good indication of the extent to which it is working.

The 2002 monitoring and assessment report found that 88% of paid employees would have been eligible to collect EI if they had lost their jobs or quit with just cause.

EI coverage for women is high. Coverage for men, which is 96%, and for women, which is 95%, working full time is nearly identical. Among part time workers, coverage for women, which is 55%, is actually higher than for men, which is 41%.

Almost 900,000 women accessed the EI program in 2001. About 72% of special benefit claimants were women. Over two-thirds of family supplement recipients were women.

Switching to an hours based system in 1996, changes to the re-entrance provision and the clawback, and doubling maternity and parental benefits from six months to one year have particularly benefited women.

In December 2000 entrance requirements for special benefits were reduced from 700 hours to 600 hours benefiting again many more women. This resulted in approximately 18,000 new special benefit claims in 2001-02 as compared to the preceding year.

Since January 2001 parents have the flexibility they need to stay home with their babies for up to one year. Early evidence shows that Canadians are taking advantage of this enhanced support.

We are pleased that our efforts to improve support to working Canadian parents are making a difference. More than 200,000 Canadians accessed maternity and parental benefits in 2001-02, an increase of 17.7% for parental benefits and 9.9% for maternity benefits.

The best way to help women is to provide them with opportunities to participate in a positive manner in the Canadian economy and it is working. More and more women are finding and keeping jobs. In fact the hon. member may need only look at the economic record of the government to see that conditions have improved for Canadian workers, both men and women.

Since 1996 we have created 2.2 million new jobs, an increase of 16.1%. Six hundred and sixty-two thousand jobs have been created for women since 1996, an increase of 14.2%.

The unemployment rate for adult women was 6.4% in August, lower than the national average which was 8%.

According to StatsCan, labour force attachment is now 67.5%, close to the highest level in 12 years. Labour force attachment for adult women is now 60.7%.

These figures show that the system is working and is in fact promoting a higher economic confidence among Canadians.

[South Pole Rescue, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sean Loutitt, a pilot from Calgary, who once again displayed the kind of courage and skill of which we can all be proud. Mr. Loutitt, along with a second plane piloted by Jim Haffey, made an extraordinary rescue at the South Pole yesterday.

This weekend Mr. Loutitt and his crew successfully completed the daring rescue of an American worker who needed urgent medical attention at the Amundsen-Scott Polar Research Station.

The Twin Otter plan left Calgary almost two weeks ago but could not attempt the rescue until now because of poor weather conditions. After more than 24 hours, they arrived safely at Punta Arenas International Airport in Chile.

I ask the House to join me in extending our congratulations and our thanks to Mr. Loutitt, his crew and all the other brave Canadians who undertake dangerous missions like this one to save the lives of others.

[User Fees Act, September 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize our colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke North, and his achievement in raising the profile of the subject of external charging, as has been pointed out.

The government's commitment to greater accountability in this area was affirmed in budget 2003 with a specific commitment to set out principles and enhanced implementation requirements for improved management of the whole architecture of user charges and cost recovery. The external charging policy, which was announced on September 3 by the President of the Treasury Board, delivers on that commitment responsibly and effectively.

And for those reasons, the government is not supporting Bill C-212. With stakeholder consultation as its backbone, the policy strikes a balance between two sound management practices, which if put forward will accommodate some of the concerns of and the suggestions that have been made by the member. While it strives for government wide consistency, it still provides the flexibility for individual programs to meet the needs of the varied and diverse interests of their stakeholders.

This is particularly important given today's fiscal realities that limit finite resources, and it also implicitly recognizes that federal departments face the difficult job of setting priorities within those limits day to day. The revised policy is the result of a thorough review that sought the input of paying users and other external stakeholders as well as departments. Members of Parliament made their views known through the efforts of the Standing Committee on Finance, which has a long-standing interest in this issue.

The review heard that there is broad support for the principles of equity and fairness that underpin the policy, but the review also revealed that stakeholders shared a number of substantive concerns that needed to be addressed. And through the policy, I believe that they have been.

The result is a revised policy that focuses on accountability and transparency as called for by stakeholders and, more importantly, by parliamentarians. Note that during the review a benchmarking study of other jurisdictions showed that Canada's charging policy compared quite favourably to other jurisdictions in terms of the clarity and thoroughness of its guidance and its principles based character.

The revised policy builds on this solid foundation to meet the concerns raised during the review as well as by my colleague's bill. Through the revised policy, the existing link between fees and service performance is made stronger. Service standards are now mandatory for any program with external charges and so is the need to develop them through consultation with stakeholders. But the policy makes clear that service commitments must also take account of the program's priorities as set through legislation or regulation. Service delivery is in the broad public interest and the policy recognizes that standards must reflect the needs of all Canadians in a balanced and even-handed fashion.

Furthermore, while departments are required to consult on actions to be taken if service commitments fail, the policy does not focus solely on fee rebates as Bill C-212 seems to. Instead of concentrating on negative consequences for departments, the policy encourages an approach that resolves the issues proactively. The hope is that consultation up front can reduce the need for confrontation after the fact.

By giving departments and stakeholders the flexibility to explore a range of options, the policy recognizes the message consistently sent by external stakeholders. The key issue is service improvement. Many paying users and their associations have expressed a willingness to pay higher fees in order to invest in better service. It follows logically, therefore, that concentrating on fee rebates may not provide the answer paying users are looking for, namely, improved service delivery.

While the review found that departments generally handle complaints well, better communications were called for. In response, the revised policy requires that dispute management processes be more formally structured, more visible and more clearly communicated during consultation, and the policy explicitly acknowledges that ministers may request recommendations from independent advisory panels.

The government also acknowledged the concerns raised by parliamentarians in that departments must do a better job of reporting detailed information on external charging activities to Parliament and to the public. Therefore the revised policy commits the government to annually report details on cost, revenue and performance information to Parliament through existing vehicles, such as the public accounts, the reports on plans and priorities and the departmental performance reports.

The government did not wait until completing the policy. It has already met this commitment as shown in the 2002-03 departmental performance reports to be tabled this fall.

The revised policy also touches on other important requirements, such as analysis, costing and pricing practices, and monitoring.

The overall aim is to provide better guidance and direction to departments while providing greater clarity and certainty for paying users, parliamentarians and other external stakeholders, all with the overriding objective of enhanced accountability and transparency.

With these improvements, the policy addresses many of the concerns raised by stakeholders and Bill C-212. The policy also has the advantage of avoiding the potential problems contained within Bill C-212, problems associated with its potential impacts on Parliament.

If passed, the bill would establish a confusing system of overlapping authorities, bringing the review powers of committee into conflict with the principle of ministerial responsibility. As well, they would conflict with the current roles of various cabinet committees which themselves have a role in the existing review process. This was enunciated by our former colleague, Mr. Herb Gray, when he appeared before the House finance committee studying Bill C-212. I would encourage members to read his testimony on this important matter.

If passed into law the bill would potentially allow the courts, and not Parliament, to oversee the detailed management of external charging practices. This is because stakeholders, if unsatisfied, could ultimately take their complaints to the court.

The revised policy makes it unnecessary for these risks to be taken. We have the tools now to ensure that implementation of external charging is improved.

For the reasons I have mentioned, and with great respect to my colleague who has given a great deal of consideration to Bill C-212, the existing external charging policy meets many of the concerns expressed by parliamentarians and stakeholders without the potentially problematic issues that would arise from the passage of Bill C-212.

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening not only to this speaker but to previous speakers and it seems to me that they cross the boundary of fairness. Natural justice demands that when people are talking about someone in an incriminating fashion that person has the right to defend themselves. What we have--

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in the negative on the last vote.

[Antarctic Environmental Protection Act, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 is enabling legislation that will allow Canada to ratify the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, commonly known as the Madrid protocol.

Since signing the protocol in 1991, Canada has been committed to its ratification. By doing so, Canada will be joining the other 29 nations that have ratified the protocol. It will commit the country to the protection of this unique ecosystem, from which we can learn a great deal about the world's environment.

As a nation active in Antarctica, we must provide clarity on Canada's role in the region to Canadians present there and to the global community. We must establish mechanisms that will prevent or mitigate potential negative environmental impacts of human activity.

The Antarctic was once available to only the most adventurous of explorers and is now visited regularly by tourists and scientists, including Canadians. With continued scientific research, commercial fishing and increased tourism, we must be cognizant of the cumulative impacts of human action.

The challenge that nations operating in the Antarctic face is to manage activities in a way that balances the benefits of access with the need for environmental protection. The Madrid protocol, which came into force in 1998, achieves that balance through three key obligations.

First, it commits parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

Second, it sets out the principles for environmental protection, requiring an environmental impact assessment of all activities before they are allowed to proceed.

Third, the Madrid protocol bans activities harmful to the Antarctic environment, such as commercial mineral resource activity, damage to historic Antarctic sites and the harmful disturbance of wildlife.

The protocol's approach to environmental protection and conservation is similar to the approach taken by Canada in the areas of environmental assessments, marine pollution countermeasures, as well as our general approach toward national parks and species at risk.

What Bill C-42 does is it provides the legislative basis needed to implement the requirements of the Madrid protocol in Canada. Canadian tour companies and scientists are already voluntarily complying with the protocol using the approval mechanisms established by other nations. Those individuals and groups have consistently called upon Canada to ratify the protocol.

It is time for Canada to take responsibility for the activities of its nationals in the Antarctic.

Bill C-42 is consistent with established Canadian legal policy and practice and is in accordance with international law. It is consistent with the approach taken by other countries that have ratified the protocol.

The history of Antarctica is one of inspiration. It inspired people like Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton and the men that joined them, including other Canadians. It inspired ground breaking scientific research. Perhaps most important, it inspired the nations of the world to come together in a spirit of cooperation and multilateralism to declare that there would be a place on earth dedicated to peace and science.

It is now time for Canada to complete the process that began a decade ago and join the world in preserving and protecting the environment that has inspired so many in the past so that it will continue to inspire many more in the future.

We have seen only too well what damage can be caused to fragile frozen tundra if rules and procedures are not put in place and a common understanding is not established.

Antarctica is the last great wilderness on earth. It is not the territory of one nation, but the responsibility of all people in the world.

Canada has a well deserved reputation as a responsible polar nation that protects its environmental heritage. That reputation must be extended to Antarctica as well.

My hope is that passage of the bill through the House will enable Canada to do its fair share to protect this last common wilderness as a legacy for people in the future.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise with respect to this debate and make further comments on something that was raised during the debate on the subject of trust funds.

It was said that the government had not dealt with trust funds. I beg to differ. I will elaborate with respect to the overview, which I think will bring members of the opposition to the proper conclusion that the matter of trust funds has in fact been dealt with.

There has been a lot of confusion with respect to Bill C-24 and the use of trust funds for political purposes. I believe it is time to correct these misconceptions and to try to set the record straight. In this regard, it is important to be clear about what Bill C-24 will do and what it will not do with respect to trust funds.

Three types of trust fund activity must be clearly distinguished: improper use of trust funds that is caught by Bill C-24; improper use of trust funds that is not caught by Bill C-24 but is dealt with by other means beyond the context of the bill; and finally, the use of trust funds that is not improper and is therefore not caught at all.

By way of overview, first and foremost, Bill C-24 contains a number of safeguards which would ensure that political trust funds cannot be used for election purposes which in fact would evade prohibitions or limits on political donations or deliberately avoid disclosure requirements. The proposed legislation would ban indirect political contributions and provide for a system of full disclosure to ensure that hidden donations are not possible.

Bill C-24 does not, however, and I emphasize this, attempt to address every type of wrongdoing or improper conduct involving political trust funds. It is about political financing specifically in the context of elections. Where trust funds are used for non-election purposes, for example to confer a personal or private benefit, other mechanisms in fact apply. Most specifically, these include the proposed code of conduct for parliamentarians, to be administered by an independent ethics commissioner.

There are also potential uses of trust funds that are not improper and need not be prohibited at all. For example, like other citizens, politicians may wish to involve themselves with charitable work or non-profit causes that have no electoral purpose. This is entirely legitimate, and most members would accept that we are attempting to encourage community based organizations to participate in improving the quality of life in our communities. This is entirely legitimate. In no way could it be suggested that it undermines democratic principles generally or circumvents the electoral finance system in particular. So the fact that trust fund activity can be used for non-electoral purposes is not caught up by Bill C-24 and cannot be regarded as a loophole.

I will discuss the use of trust funds that are caught up by Bill C-24. Later, a colleague will discuss the use of trust funds that are not caught up by Bill C-24 but are caught up by other means, as I illustrated a little earlier.

Let us talk about the use of trust funds for electoral purposes that are caught up and included within the context of Bill C-24. While Bill C-24 does not address trust funds directly, the effect of its provisions would be to prevent the use of trust funds as a way to funnel money to political candidates and parties, thereby deliberately circumventing contribution limits and the disclosure requirements. Bill C-24 provides that any money donated to a candidate, a riding association, a political party, a nomination contestant or a leadership candidate can only come from an individual out of his or her own money.

This is subject to two very limited exceptions for donations from corporations and trade unions and from unincorporated associations made only at the local level and up to a maximum of $1,000 per year. Not being an individual, trust funds cannot contribute in their own right. But what about indirect contributions from the fund through its trustee or trustees?

Where the trustee of the fund is a single individual, no contributions would be possible. This is because Bill C-24 expressly prohibits indirect contributions received from another person or another entity. Thus an individual trustee, like any other individual, could only donate his or her own funds and not funds received indirectly from others.

There may be circumstances however, such as where the trust fund is administered by more than one trustee, where a trust may be treated as an association. Bill C-24 provides a minor exception to the prohibition on indirect contributions by allowing associations of individuals to contribute funds received from other individuals. The names and addresses of original contributors must be disclosed, along with the amount of their contribution.

This is the only way a trust fund could contribute money for electoral purposes. It is not in any way a loophole in the system or an oversight in the bill, but a carefully limited exception. It directly parallels the exception allowing minor contributions from unions and from corporations. Moreover, as I indicated before, contributions are subject to full disclosure of original donors.

This exception in no way undermines the system of contribution limits, since any donations made by an individual to such a trust fund must be deducted from his or her overall contribution limit.

Subject to this very limited exception, the provisions of Bill C-24 would, for example, prevent the use of a trust fund to finance a nomination contest or electoral campaign, or to facilitate the transfer of funds collected by one candidate indirectly to other candidates. Trust fund donations to a political party or leadership contestant would be prohibited altogether, since contributions from unincorporated associations would be confined only to the local level.

In addition to these provisions, the anti-avoidance clause of Bill C-24 is also relevant to the use of trust funds. This section prohibits any attempt to circumvent the bill's contribution limits to conceal the identity of a source or of a donation, or to collude with any person for these purposes. This represents a further protection against the nefarious or unscrupulous use of those trust funds for electoral purposes which in fact would subvert the spirit and scheme of the act.

The Chief Electoral Officer has recognized the extent to which Bill C-24 would solve the problem of unregulated election money being channeled through trust funds. As he stated at a recent international symposium “If Bill C-24 is enacted, the Canada Elections Act will do much to eliminate the perception of, or potential for, undue influence from political contributions”--and I emphasize--“including contributions made from trust funds”.

For these reasons I will vote against Motion No. 12, but of course I will support Motion No. 11.

That deals quite comprehensively with the issue of trust funds as it relates to those that fall within the context of Bill C-24 and the use of those trust funds for electoral purposes which are caught by Bill C-24.

[Environment Week, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years the first week of June has been designated Canadian Environment Week. Running from June 1 to June 7, Environment Week celebrates achievements in the protection of our land, water, air and wildlife. The theme for this year's Environment Week, “Taking Action for Our Environment”, speaks to the importance of individual action.

It has been a remarkable year for our environment. The wildlife that is so much a part of who we are as Canadians has new protection thanks to the Species at Risk Act. We have ratified the Kyoto protocol and started to implement our plan to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change. We were an influential force at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. This was capped off with a federal budget that will invest $3 billion in environmental initiatives, the single biggest Government of Canada commitment to the environment in our history.

I urge all Canadians to do their part this week and every week as we work together to sustain Canada's natural environment.

[Points of Order, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to sit as a very interested member on the aboriginal committee during its adjudication with respect to the bill. I also have sat on the subcommittee dealing with the needs of aboriginal children and have travelled extensively with that committee. Therefore the issue is of great importance and interest to me.

However the question that is before you, Mr. Speaker, is one on which I wish to comment. I also want to comment on the spirit and the goodwill with which the chairman, under very difficult circumstances, dealt with the issue. That is not to say that there were not very strong feelings with respect to the substance and subject matter of the bill. However no one tried harder than the chair to have an environment within which very difficult differences of opinion were expressed.

It is usual and customary, in the experience of the House, that where there are these kinds of problems the government is accused of closure. There was no closure attempt with respect to this. The committee sat and sat.

If the intent of the chair was to disallow and to arbitrarily not provide for a difference of opinion, then he was in abject failure. In fact, there was a huge amount of discussion. Amendments and subamendments were made. In fact, procedural mechanisms were used in an attempt to delay and obfuscate the committee from dealing with the bill and reporting it through to the House.

The chairman took that responsibility. He should be congratulated, not subjugated to this kind of partisan nonsense. He should be congratulated and thanked for the manner in which he sat and very patiently tried to adjudicate in an upfront way. Those are the facts of the case and no--