//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEnvironment and Sustainable DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the New Democratic Party's dissenting report on the report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on hunting and trapping in Canada.New Democrats support and encourage Canadians to spend time enjoying Canada's outdoors. We see it as a privilege. New Democrats recognize and salute the fact that hunters and trappers have played an important role in the conservation of wildlife habitat, which complements the vital and important role carried out by government agencies through regulation, enforcement, research, and environmental protection and monitoring.We make the following recommendations. First, in order to ensure healthy wildlife populations and a sustainable environment that protects habitat, it is recommended that the Government of Canada initiate and provide funding for wildlife research and monitoring, particularly in the area of the impact of climate change on habitat.Second, as federal legislation has played an important role in maintaining healthy wildlife populations and a sustainable environment, it is recommended that the Government of Canada support and enhance laws to protect Canada's environment and wildlife.Third, because of the special role that hunting and trapping play in the culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples, it is recommended that the Government of Canada take active steps to ensure that the hunting and trapping rights of Canadian aboriginal people, which were established in nation-to-nation treaties, are well protected.8510-412-277 Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, "Licensed Hunting and Trapping in Canada"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsStanding Committee on Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentTrapping and trappersWildlife conservationHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaJohnWestonWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the definitions he provided to us today in his speech. However, I want to go to the basic idea that we are passing this law that is going to do something.In Denmark, the parliament there unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. Six years after the law was enacted, not one single charge has been brought up under that law. The people who deal with these types of issues in Denmark say that they do not think the law has had any impact. In fact, it might have a negative impact of driving the process of forced marriages underground and increasing the sophistication of those who make these decisions for their children. That is what has happened with that law.We have gone into this time allocation procedure on a law that affects many people in our country. Marriage laws are extremely important to people and now we have made a decision about this. Is this going to help? We do not know whether it will. Therefore, why does the member think that by criminalizing this act somehow it will change the cultures of the people who are involved in it?CriminalizationGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsMarriage and divorceReport stageS-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSenate billsRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—DieppeRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have put forward a number of amendments to this bill, a bill with a title that seems almost silly that it would be put forward for a bill of this nature. We have proposed amendments that try to enhance or fix the bill, but we do not anticipate these amendments will pass and we will likely oppose the bill at report stage.Dealing with this issue is fine, but, as I pointed out in a previous question, we would simply be criminalizing an action that takes place within families and between individuals. This action is normally considered to be very much a decision made by those people, not by the state, not by the community, engaged in matrimonial practices. The bill very clearly states that marriages cannot be forced and someone cannot be forced into marriage. This is my 40th year of a happy marriage, and I am very proud of having accomplished that. Luckily enough, I did not force anyone into a marriage. Due to her beauty, charm and good nature, it made it unbelievably compelling for me to enter into marriage and, luckily, she said yes. We are concerned that this be dealt with in a very careful fashion. We are concerned that the criminalization of these acts is probably not the appropriate method to deal with this situation. It will not make the difference that needs to be made.When we talk about marriage laws, the age of marriage in the Northwest Territories, under the NWT marriage act, is 15. That is what has been determined by the NWT government and put into place under section 46 of its act. Under this proposed bill, we will have to change the law now to 16 years of age. Any marriages that are contemplated in the next while by people under the age of 16 will have to wait. That is fair enough.I wonder what consultation the government conducted with the provinces and territories about what they considered to be a fair age and how the provinces and territories felt about having their authority to set the age of marriage as they deem fit taken away from them and established by Parliament. I would like to some answers to those questions. I think we all would.When it comes to violence against women and children in society, all of us in the House want to do things to prevent that, to change society so it is less violent, so people can live their lives in a good fashion, free from duress and living under the control of others, whether it is in marriage or the relationship after marriage. We are all in favour of those things.Age of consentCriminalizationFamilies and childrenFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsMarriage and divorcePublic consultationReport stageS-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSenate billsTitle of a billRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—DieppeBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1125)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the seventh anniversary of the apology to residential school survivors, the Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the government's commitment to reconciliation by asking the Pope if he would be willing to issue an apology. Indigenous people are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister refused to do so, with National Chief Perry Bellegarde saying it was “sad and unfortunate that it did not happen”.Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore this critical opportunity to show good faith on the path to reconciliation?Aboriginal residential schoolsFrancis, PopeOral questionsRoman Catholic ChurchVaticanPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—CarletonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to this bill in short order after question period. Prior to question period, I talked about some of the issues that were involved with the bill. I want to speak now about what is ahead of us on family matters. I would refer the House to a Globe and Mail article this morning that talked about a Nanos poll. Nanos indicates:When asked which federal party was most trusted to help Canadian families, 34 per cent of the poll’s respondents picked the NDP. That compared with the 27 per cent who chose the Liberals and the 26 per cent who chose the Conservatives.This speaks directly to the problems with this bill. The Conservatives have proposed an approach on marriage, a part of the family cycle that is so valuable to everyone. They proposed changes to it without consultation with the provinces and territories, putting forward an idea that really does not accomplish much. The laws of duress are already in place. Other countries that have established similar laws have shown no results from them.What the NDP would do for families and for women to deal with violence was very clearly articulated by the member for Churchill when she put forward Motion No. 444. It was a motion to establish a coordinated national action plan to address violence against women. Part of that would be strategies that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, including specific attention to aboriginal women, women with disabilities, women from minority groups, and young women.What we proposed in our national action plan was to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding groups such as those. Certainly the ideas that the Conservatives are concerned about and would deal with by criminalizing forced marriages would be dealt with inside a framework that would look for actual solutions to the problems rather than by criminalizing those engaged in it, and criminalizing them in a very broad and capricious way that really does not allow for definition or for any kind of rational action on that part. I think this is really important, as it comes on the heels of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, which followed many groups in society by asking for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. Violence against women is one of the biggest and most pressing problems that we have with families in this country, and the need for that public inquiry is so important. Why is it so important? The Prime Minister said that this is not a social issue. Of course it is a social issue, much as forced marriages are a social issue. All of these are social issues that need to be dealt with in a respectful, responsible fashion. We need to get to the bottom of the issues in society that create the conditions that lead to violence and forced marriages and all of the things that all of us in this House today would not want to have happen in our families, in aboriginal families, or in minority group families. Yes, we are concerned about it, but using retail politics to put forward a bill that does nothing except provide a title to an issue is really the wrong approach. That is why the polling results that we see today across this country with respect to who the Canadian population trusts to deal with issues for families are so revealing. We talk about real ways to come to grips with society's ills. That is not through legislation; that is through careful, enunciated conditions that arise out of a careful examination of the issues.Age of consentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsMarriage and divorcePublic consultationReport stageS-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSenate billsViolence against womenWomenBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockRoxanneJamesScarborough Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with what the member pointed out that I supposedly said. I will look at the record to make sure that it was not said.All of the things the member is talking about are laws that now exist in society. All of the things she is talking about are issues that we have legal recourse to deal with in society. Those are not issues that stand outside of society today. We support the intent of the bill. We are just saying that it does not work. It will not be competent in what it is going to do for society.Age of consentCriminalizationFamilies and childrenGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsMarriage and divorceReport stageS-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSenate billsTitle of a billRoxanneJamesScarborough CentreLysaneBlanchette-LamothePierrefonds—Dollard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, sincerity in politics is sometimes considerably abused.In the case of Bill C-51, the Liberals were concerned that by not supporting the bill, they might somehow be tainted in the view of some important constituencies out there, so they decided to support it. I think that is what is going on in this case as well. If the Liberals say they do not like what is in the bill, if they say they think the bill is inadequate and they do not see that it is going to provide the proper results, then, by golly, they should stand up and vote against it. We are not here to make bad legislation. We are not here to put laws on the books simply to have laws on the books. We are here to do things for society that work. That is very important. That is why the New Democratic Party is trusted by Canadian families. It is because they know we want to do things that actually work for them.C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsMarriage and divorceReport stageS-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other ActsSenate billsLysaneBlanchette-LamothePierrefonds—DollardRoxanneJamesScarborough Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP)(1015)[English] moved: MotionThat the House call on the government to take immediate action to fix Nutrition North Canada and to improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by: (a) immediately including in the Nutrition North Canada program the 50 isolated Northern communities accessible only by air that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy; (b) initiating a comprehensive review of the Nutrition North program, with Northerners as full partners, to determine ways of directly providing the subsidy to Northern residents and to improve supports for traditional foods; (c) creating equitable program-eligibility criteria for Northern communities based on their real circumstances; (d) providing sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities; and (e) working with all Northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity. He said: Mr. Speaker, as member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories for the past 10 years, this is a wonderful opportunity to speak about the people of the north. That includes the northern parts of provinces and the three territories, the hundreds of communities that stretch across Canada's north. I grew up in an isolated community. We did not have a road until later on in my life, so I know the difference a transportation system delivers. I understand the intrinsic nature of the problems of people who are isolated and remote. These are the communities we are talking about right now. These are Canadian communities that do not have road access or the ability to be served in a fashion that will allow their costs to be even reasonably close to southern Canada's. These communities are suffering. They will continue to suffer until we can come up with answers that work better for them.In a great and prosperous country like Canada, no one should go hungry. Unfortunately, for many northern Canadians, that is the case. Some people forego eating in the day so that they make sure their children have sufficient food. These are situations that Canadians respond to with emotion and with a desire to change.Equality of Canadians is an essential in the fabric of our society. Likewise, northerners know they live in a high-cost part of Canada, but to be equal, the government has to come in and be involved. In addition to pure humanitarianism, helping northerners with their high cost of living, particularly for food costs, enhances Arctic sovereignty. More than that, northerners provide a basis for what the government considers to be the new resource sector in our country, whether it is mining, oil, gas, or any of the other natural resources the government covets in the north. Those people provide a workforce and an opportunity to see those resources developed in a good fashion.Originally, through the past decade up until 2010, we had the food mail program. That program had accelerating costs. In 2011, nutrition north was dreamt up. The criteria for community participation was so flawed that about 50 isolated fly-in communities were left out of that program. In his report last fall, the Auditor General said:We found that the Department has not established community eligibility criteria that are fair and accessible. The Department considered communities eligible if they lacked year-round surface transportation and if they had used the Food Mail Program extensively. Communities that had made very little use of the Food Mail Program were determined to be eligible for only a partial subsidy...This partial subsidy was 5¢ a kilogram. It did not amount to anything. He went on to say:...while communities that had not used the previous program were determined to be ineligible. Consequently, community eligibility is based on past usage instead of current need. As a result, there may be other isolated northern communities, not benefiting from the subsidy, where access to affordable, nutritious food may be an issue.The Auditor General went on to say that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was aware of this problem, and it estimated that it would cost $7 million a year to service these 50 communities. My office conducted research and was able to identify 46 of the communities that should be getting the full subsidy. Twenty-seven of these communities are in ridings represented by Conservative members of Parliament. Nineteen communities are in the member for Kenora's riding. Where was the member during his last two-and-a-half years as parliamentary secretary to the minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development? Could he not have spoken to the minister about the need facing these communities in his riding? Then again, there were other members that failed to stand up and speak for their communities. (1020)Because these communities need any help they can get, the first part of the New Democratic motion is, “immediately including in the nutrition north Canada program the 50 isolated northern communities accessible only by air that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy”. However, including these communities is simply an emergency solution. Including these communities would bring them up to the level of the other communities. That is fine. That is a start toward success. It is only the start, but it is a necessary start. We need to be fair in this country. We need to treat every community the same. We need to understand that every community has similar requirements for these subsidies, regardless of their past history.Another problem found by the Auditor General is that there is no way for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to determine if the subsidy is being passed on to northerners by retailers. This is a central flaw in the program. While professing to help northerners access affordable and nutritious food, what nutrition north really does is subsidize the selling of food to northerners and to anyone else who goes into their stores.Rather than providing assistance to businesses, it might be better to look at the systems used in other countries for food subsidies. One possible solution might be to actually subsidize consumers. In the United States, the women, infants, and children program, a very successful program initiated by the federal government, goes across all states. That program is accessible by people through a swipe card.We are not here today to decide on the long-term solution for this issue. However, we need to establish a process to work with northerners to come up with a long-term solution, and that is part of our resolution as well.Another part of the motion calls on the government to initiate a comprehensive review of the nutrition north program, with northerners as full partners, to determine ways to provide the subsidy to northern residents and also to support the use of traditional foods. Throughout the small communities, the traditional way of providing sustenance was through hunting, trapping, fishing, and gardening, in many cases. Those were ways communities provided food in days gone by and that need to be supported now to make them more successful.The nutrition north program was poorly thought out to begin with. For a government that says it supports the north, it fails to work with northerners, or even listen to them. I could be talking about the opposition to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act or to the bill that was passed yesterday, Bill S-6, in which the government simply rode over the valid concerns of many Yukoners. The same thing could be said about nutrition north. There is a growing groundswell of people speaking up about the program and saying that it is not successful. For instance, the Auditor General found that aboriginal affairs had spoken to Health Canada about what food should go in the subsidy but seemed to have ignored northerners and what food they think should be covered.When I was in Iqaluit, I met with the people who were engaged in trying to work on this program through raising public awareness about it, and they told me one interesting fact: most of the people in Nunavut, the Inuit people, are lactose intolerant. The fact that the government has made milk a large part of their particular program means that many of them will not pick up on that subsidy, because they cannot use milk the way many southern people or Caucasians use that product. Therefore, that subsidy is not actually as valid as it should be for that particular group of people. That is why we are calling for more support for traditional food. That is part of what has to happen.(1025)As I noted, the current nutrition north criteria exclude a large number of communities that should be receiving the full subsidy. The current criteria seem to be shaped more toward excluding communities than toward ensuring that all northerners have access to affordable nutritious food.Part of what was going on with the nutrition north program, as the Auditor General pointed out, was that there were to be yearly reviews of eligibility and how the program was working. We have not seen those yearly reviews in the four years the program has been put in place. How was the government to determine that the program was working properly if it did not do the reviews? It is a very significant and important program dealing with the health of many northerners. The result of not dealing with it correctly means that other costs in the system have gone up. Perhaps they do not mind that the costs for health, education, and the social costs that go with poverty and the failure to have a proper lifestyle are costs that are borne by other governments. Perhaps the current federal government has not been that concerned about them.We know that many other communities in the country that have year-round road access have very high food costs. If they are hauling food from the southern United States or Mexico to Inuvik, the costs are very high. These costs have to be borne by northerners living in these communities, not all of whom have high-paying jobs. Because of the poorly thought-out community eligibility criteria, we are calling on the government to create equitable program eligibility criteria for northern communities based upon their real circumstances. Many of the communities are very small communities. The cost of running retail stores is very high. They cannot avoid that problem. They cannot avoid the problem of the cost of fuel, which has been inflated by almost 400% over the last decade throughout northern Canada. They have to deal with that problem, as well, in a small community. They cannot expect that using single criteria, the freight rate, and whether they were in the program before is good enough to determine how a community should receive the subsidy.A comparison of expenditures under the last years of the food mail program with those allocated under nutrition north shows that the Conservatives have been deliberately underfunding the program. In the last two years of the food mail program, the cost was about $59 million. That was up from four years earlier, when the cost was $39 million. We saw a rapidly accelerating cost for the food mail program. Why was that? It was because all the other costs throughout northern Canada were going up. The Auditor General indicated that the inflationary cost of food in the north was double the rate it was in southern Canada. In the food mail program, where the Conservatives did not really have a hold on the costs, there was an accelerating cost.However, in the four years of the nutrition north program, the original allocation each year was $53 million. It was topped up, but it never showed much increase over those years in comparison with what was being put into the food mail program.I think we can safely say that this program has been underfunded since its inception. The indications from the Conservative government were that it would now increase the funding by 5% a year. However, it has not put the money in to catch up to where the program should be. If the program was in place for four years without inflationary figures attached to it, then funding should start at a much higher level before it starts adding the 5% per year.(1030)This shows either poor planning or a deliberate attempt to lowball the program's costs. For that reason, part of this motion is that we call on the government to provide “....sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities.”This is what is required. I think back to when I first came to Parliament. I was working on the northern residents' tax deduction, which was a program in 1989. The argument from all northerners was that the program had been in place for many years and they had seen no increase in the amount of the northern residents' tax deduction. Everyone said that inflation should put about 50% into that program. The late minister Jim Flaherty, in his 2007 budget, put in 10%, and there has been nothing since.What we have seen is that program, which was very important to northerners, which worked very well to encourage people to live and work in the north, and to develop all the things the Conservative government thinks are very important, like mines, oil and gas, and all the rest, has not been allowed to increase, simply to keep up to the rate of inflation.The rate of inflation in the north is very high. In southern Canada for people heating with natural gas, the cost is pretty well the same as it was a decade ago. In the north, the same people using energy are looking at a 400% increase in their costs. It is a cold place and houses need to be heated. We need an increase in funding to this program, like other programs that are not tied to inflation. People cannot escape those costs. Those costs are part of a system that we live in.The final point I have is we need to stop supporting a southern Canada-style of food delivery system in the north, and develop a system which is northern-based and sustainable.We need to do more for ourselves. We need to be encouraged. Northern communities across the country need to be encouraged to look for solutions to this as well. Historically there are many large farms throughout the Northwest Territories. They were run by the missions. They produced the vegetables for all the north in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. That is gone now, but it could come back. There are some northern communities, like Inuvik and Norman Wells, that have created greenhouses. They are very successful with their production of food.We see many opportunities in the renewable area to improve the situation, whether it is energy, food or housing. All those things come together to reduce costs.When the efforts are put in from somewhere else, it does not allow for that local involvement. When those from outside the north decide what is good for us, that usually results in failure. Keeping this in mind, we call on the government to work with all northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity.Nutrition north has many flaws and needs to be reworked with the involvement of northerners. However, until then, it must be expanded to cover all the communities that are now not being covered by that program. That is only fair. We are fair, as Canadians. We believe in equality. We do not stop somebody from applying for a GST rebate because they did not apply for it the year before. Why is that a criteria for northern communities, whether they made use of the food mail system? If they had not made use of the food mail system, they are ineligible for the nutrition north program. That is simply an excuse. We do not need excuses in the north. We need ways to feed our children, to make our system work, and to have healthy and prosperous communities.Application processCostsFood supplyGovernment assistanceNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programOpposition motionsRemote communitiesS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the case of Nahanni Butte, the member is a bit wrong on that. I would invite him to come up to my riding and I will show him the condition of the winter road that services Nahanni Butte. However, I am glad he has taken a look at that. The people in Nahanni Butte suffer incredibly high food costs. That is one of the points I made in my speech. Sometimes, the criteria being used are not a fact. What we said was that there were about 50 communities. That is what the Auditor General reported in his study. We identified 46 communities very clearly. There is a list of them here and I would be pleased to provide it to members so that they can look at it. This was research done by my office in an effort to understand better what communities should be provided with access. If there are others, I would encourage members to come forward with the communities in their ridings that should be in this program. I should be hearing from some Conservative members who also have these kinds of communities in their ridings and say that their community needs to be subsidized as well.Application processFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we could have a relatively civilized debate about this today. We are talking about real people here, who sometimes go hungry, whose kids go to school hungry, who suffer from malnutrition. The rate of dental problems in Nunavut is extremely high because they do not have proper nutrition. These are all things that are real problems for Canadians. I really do not appreciate that we get off track on this today. I really hope that everybody pulls it back together and understands that we are talking about real people.There needs to be accountability for what we do. Everyone should understand a system has to be fair to everyone. We cannot put in tax laws that exclude people. Why should we put in systems for a food subsidy that excludes people? Those things do not match up. They do not match up to the Canadian model, so let us get with it.AccountabilityFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesBruceStantonSimcoe NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, every community should have access. The fact that these communities in northern Ontario are not getting access to this program is terrible when we think that in northern Ontario right now at the Victor Mine they are pulling out diamonds. The resources are being taken away. The communities are in terrible shape. The thought that we would somehow hold back on providing a subsidy for food to communities that have so many other problems as well is ludicrous. We need to understand that the system has to be fair and has to support everyone.Application processFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, we identified that there were 46 communities that we could come up with. This is a difficult process. There are many small communities throughout northern Canada. It is not an easy task to determine which ones are on a road and off. Our research showed there were at least 46 communities. The cost of $7.5 million is based on taking the average subsidy in that particular region that is applied to the other communities that have the full subsidy and saying, if we gave the communities that do not have the subsidy the same as their neighbours are getting, then it would work out to about $7.5 million a year. That is the math that we used. I am ready to talk about any math. I am ready to talk about any community. I do not want to restrict the list, but this is what we work with.CostsFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, the speech of the parliamentary secretary had so many inaccuracies that I cannot start to describe them.I want to go after dollars. He said that the government added $11 million this year to the program, to bring it up to $65 million. In 2010-11, under Public Accounts, $59 million were spent on food mail. In 2013-14, $63,879,237 were spent on the nutrition north program. Now the parliamentary secretary is telling us that the government has added $11 million to the program and it is up to $65 million. How does he make those figures work? It is absurd. The program needs proper funding. The government knows that most of the $11 million was part of the previous year's funding.CostsFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her position on this, and I want to remind members that the motion says very clearly that part b is to determine ways of directly providing the subsidy to northern residents. That is actually what the motion says today. We agree that we need to have some temporary measures to fix this existing program, but we need to move on to other ways that can make a bigger difference.The parliamentary secretary talked in his speech about some of the food costs. We did an analysis comparing communities that get a partial subsidy, like Lutselk'e, which gets 5¢ a kilogram and where milk is $16.99 for four litres, with others, like Kujawiak, Quebec, which gets a full subsidy and where the cost is $7.99. We could look at other things, like potatoes. In Lutselk'e, a 10-pound bag is $13.99. We took that directly from the store last week. In Kujawiak, it is $5.23. There is a reduction for communities involved in the program. If they are not involved in the program, they are paying extraordinary costs.Part of our motion is to try to get these communities into the program. These communities are not just from the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. They are from all over northern Canada. Does the hon. member not agree that this program has to cover every single community out there that is isolated or remote and has high food costs?CostsFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesYvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague got into this issue, which is much more complex, but it needs to be said when it comes to first nations. I think of the Conservatives talking about how they provided funding for students and schools equivalent to the provinces. In the Northwest Territories, we have isolated and remote communities. The average funding for communities in the Northwest Territories is some $22,000 a student. The government funds isolated and remote first nations communities at about $11,000 or $12,000. The money is simply not adequate.It is the same with the nutrition north program. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the Conservatives added $11 million to the program this year. No, they did not. The program was $64 million last year and it is now about $65 million this year.Is it not time that the Conservatives get off this idea that somehow they are doing the right thing with the funds they are providing to first nations and to isolated and remote communities, and actually deal with the dollars that are required?Food supplyGovernment assistanceNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-FortinAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-Fortin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his statement, but once again, when he talked about the total amount of money in the program, he neglected the actual expenditures according to the public accounts in 2013-14, which were worth $64 million. When we add up the 2014-15 totals, we get to $65 million. The $11 million added to the program last October really amounted to a $1-million increase over the last year. That is hardly even 5%, which the Conservatives have indicated in their own documents is the rate of inflation that they should be applying to the amount of money in the program.I was in Nunavut, and people talked about how the Northern store gives the subsidy rate according to what nutrition north applies, which is the rate for everyone. However, it achieves a much cheaper freight rate than what is applied through the program. People there are concerned that the nutrition north program, in some cases, is not being fully given back to consumers. What does my colleague think about this?Food supplyGovernment assistanceNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesEarlDreeshenRed DeerEarlDreeshenRed Deer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by my colleague from northern Saskatchewan to be very rational. I am still concerned that he has communities in his riding that do not achieve the subsidy that should be there. However, I am sure he will be working on that.My question to him is about the nature of subsidizing large retailers that can deal with different kinds of freight rates. When I travelled to Nunavut, my understanding was that the subsidy being applied in many communities was based on a freight rate that was a universal freight rate for the airline companies. The large companies were getting a discounted rate on the freight, but if they passed on the full rate to the consumer they did not have to pay that in terms of the subsidy for the freight. Therefore, there is a real need for an analysis of all of the freight rates in the north to ensure there is fairness in the system so that the communities that pay higher costs are getting as much as they can and communities such as Iqaluit, where freight rates can be negotiated to a much lower extent, may see some changes made to make the system fair.Food supplyFreight ratesNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesRobClarkeDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverRobClarkeDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, National Chief Perry Bellegarde was clear that we cannot have reconciliation while indigenous people are mired in poverty.Yet here we are with elders being forced to root through garbage dumps for food and children going hungry because their parents have no food to give them. Instead of helping them, the Conservatives are refusing to fix nutrition north.In the spirit of reconciliation, will the Conservatives give the full subsidy to all northern fly-in communities that are currently not receiving it?Aboriginal peoplesFood supplyNorthern CanadaNutritionNutrition North Canada programOral questionsPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—CarletonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the advisory board. I wonder if he recognizes that five out of six of the members of the advisory board were contributors to the Conservative Party throughout the north. That seems like a very high percentage to occur simply by chance.The member talked about the point of sale. There was an issue raised in Iqaluit when I was last there. The food subsidy rate is $2.40. It is clearly identified on sales items within northern stores, but the understanding is that the bulk rate for air freight to Iqaluit is half of that. In fact, if there is a $2.40 subsidy, the store actually only has to pay $1.20 for the freight. Does my hon. colleague think that there should be a very close examination of the rates of subsidies to ensure that they match up to what is perceived as the method of subsidization, which is the cost of freight?Food supplyGovernment assistanceNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesJohnBarlowMacleodJohnBarlowMacleod//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have come at this by saying that some communities have winter roads, and this and that. Clearly, in our motion we seek to create equitable eligibility criteria for northern communities based on their real circumstances. The real circumstance for the mother who has to buy food for her child is the cost of food. Would the member not agree?CostsFood supplyNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act [Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is the 98th time in this Parliament that we have had a time allocation proposal by the government. This one is on a particular bill that is opposed by most of the people in Yukon in four specific areas. The government has chosen not to go back to the first nations in Yukon that have well-established relationships there based on existing laws and existing environmental legislation. The government has chosen to unilaterally put four new amendments in the bill that were not part of the larger review process. This has led to a situation where both Yukoners and first nations Yukoners are combined in their opposition to these four amendments. We saw that when we had the committee hearings in Yukon. The room was full. Hundreds of people listened to our committee. Many people spoke to it, including industry. They said not to do it, that it was silly, that it was not correct to break the relationship that existed now and was working quite well.The time allocation motion is an insult. The government will answer for this in Yukon in the next election, which is five months away. It is a pity that the government has taken this road. It is going to cause disruption and uncertainty in the Yukon economy for the next number of years until we straighten it out.Download responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementMotionsReport stageS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationYukonBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interpretation of history. I always find it humourous when people want to interpret history in a way that ignores the facts of the matter. Every politician sometimes falls into that habit.In this case, he was talking about issues that Yukoners are very well apprised of. I was amazed at the depth of knowledge and the engagement that Yukoners had on these issues when we conducted committee meetings in Whitehorse and 150 people filled the room from morning until night. My colleague was there to hear Yukoners, but I want to ask him if he was there to listen to Yukoners and understand what they were saying about the nature of the relationship between Yukoners, first nations, and the environment?Download responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementReport stageS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsThird reading and adoptionRyanLeefYukonRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who, regardless of whatever occurred before, during the time of the hearings in Yukon listened very carefully to what Yukoners said, and I appreciate that. As a northerner, I appreciate that people have the opportunity to say their piece, and certainly that did happen in Yukon.I would like my colleague to comment on this industry and the mining company that just invested heavily in Yukon. Its representative spoke at the hearings and said that the relationship between first nations and the company was based on the existing legislation, so why should they look for this change, which no one really supports in Yukon other than those who are heavily on the side of the industry. Did the member not feel that this industry's uncertainty about the legislation should have influenced the Conservatives, who have held this up as something that would benefit industry?Download responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementReport stageS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsThird reading and adoptionYvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not mind speaking to the bill, although I find that the Conservative position on this is sometimes rather odd.I was one of the NDP who voted for the first private member's bill that was going to eliminate the long gun registry, so I am speaking from a position of having done that. However, I did not support when the Conservatives would not amend the new bill, because they were destroying the data. Basically, by allowing provinces to have the right to do what they want with firearms, the Conservatives would take firearms out from under the classification of the Criminal Code and put them into civil code. This means that infractions under civil code would not make people criminals, which is a very distinct difference here. However, I want to talk about safe storage. Over the last 30 years, the best thing that has happened for firearms, in my mind, is safe storage. It means that guns are not available to be used by someone other than the owner or in disputes, which means that we save lives. Does my colleague not agree that continuing to provide safe storage of firearms is one of the most important aspects of our laws?C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other ActsFirearms permitsGovernment billsSafetyThird reading and adoptionCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersGeorge BradenInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to George Braden, the first elected premier of the Northwest Territories, who passed away Monday.Born in Saskatchewan in 1949, he and his family moved to the Northwest Territories in 1964. From 1977 to 1979, George was an advisor to the hon. Bud Drury and was the prime minister's special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories. In 1979, he was elected to the ninth Legislative Assembly. The MLAs voted George the first leader of the elected members of cabinet, a position that has become known as “premier”. He served as leader until 1989.During his time in government, George promoted a new recognition of the Northwest Territories at the national level and a more prominent role in Confederation, including working to win a seat for the NWT at the first ministers conferences. George led the NWT's lobbying to have aboriginal rights included in section 35 of the Constitution.George's strong support for an independent NWT was a major influence in my political career. He was the first of the new northern politicians to speak up for public government.My deepest sympathies go to his wife, Lise, and the Braden family. George will be sorely missed.Braden, GeorgeDeaths and funeralsNorthwest TerritoriesPremiersStatements by MembersStellaAmblerMississauga SouthPeterGoldringEdmonton East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has shown that the nutrition north criteria are not fair or accessible. They are not even based on current needs.Forty-six isolated fly-in northern communities are out in the cold, without access to nutritious and affordable food. Will the government commit today to working with all northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity?The minister can start by including these 46 communities in the nutrition north program.Food supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programOral questionsStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—BellechasseBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP)(1205)[English]Motions Nos. 1, 4 to 7, and 10 moved: Motion No. 1That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting the long title.Motion No. 4That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 14.Motion No. 5That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 16.Motion No. 6That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 17.Motion No. 7That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 21.Motion No. 10That Bill S-6 be amended by deleting Clause 34.Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehDennisBevingtonNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1205)[English]He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put forward these amendments to Bill S-6, a bill that has the ability to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. It contains many clauses that cannot be amended. Why? They came out of a five-year review of the Yukon Environmental Assessment Act and were agreed to. Many changes to the Environmental Assessment Act were worked out through a process of collaboration, understanding and collaboration between the government and the people of Yukon.After that process, four very controversial items were added to this bill and then arbitrarily put to the people of Yukon. The first would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to which Yukoners are opposed. They had no chance to work with anyone to mitigate that.The second would legislate time limits for assessments in the face of the fact that the assessment process was working just fine in Yukon, and that people had learned how to deal with very complex issues in an orderly fashion.The third would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government without consultation with and approval from the first nations who were party to the whole deal that was set up in the first place. The fourth would create broad exemptions with respect to the Yukon environmental assessment process for renewals, amendments and permits authorizations, which were in the hands of the boards already.We can see that the devolution process in the northern territories, which in Yukon started 10 years ago, has been curtailed by this legislation. It has been rolled back in a very significant and deliberate fashion by the government. That is not appropriate.The other amendments proposed to the act dealt with things that people could see and agree to. They were designed to help move the act forward in a proper fashion so the environmental assessment process could be well-respected and understood.We have had the same problem in the Northwest Territories. The government agreed to a devolution process and then forced changes to our environmental assessment process. That has now gone to court and there have been injunctions put in place by the court over the actions taken by the government in the Northwest Territories.We are likely to see the same thing in Yukon, where the first nations will once again have to take the government to court to deal with issues that should have been dealt with in a proper fashion.Therefore, we have identified four issues and are asking that they be removed from the act through these amendments. It is a request that goes back to the people of Yukon, who have asked for this.We took the committee to Yukon and had a one-day hearing, which went from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The room was filled with hundreds of people who attended the committee hearing from 8:30 a.m. until it finished in the evening. They were not pleased with the bill.(1210)The support for the bill was almost nil. People were speaking out on it. The Government of Yukon, which will face its own electors over this very shortly, will find out how those people feel about the bill. This will also be the case for the Conservative government very soon.After the election, which is likely to be in October unless the government decides to try to delay it even more, the new NDP government will be ready to put forward amendments to deal with these contentious issues for the people of the north.There is no reason at all for this to have happened in the fashion it did. The government has created uncertainty in the environmental assessment process for the companies, people and the first nations of Yukon. It has messed it up.Let me quote Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice president Lands and Environment, Kaminak Gold Corporation, which has just invested substantial sums of money in the Yukon. She said:Kaminak is concerned that the process through which YESAA is being amended is creating increased distrust between governments and uncertainty in the assessment and regulatory process for current and future projects in Yukon.These are the people who are investing in the Yukon.This is what Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations, has to say:CYFN and all 11 self-governing first nations are unanimously opposed to four provisions that are part of Bill S-6.Here we have it. On the one hand, we have industry saying that it will not work for them, that it does not need it and do not even understand why it is being done. On the other hand, first nations are saying that things are being done against all their agreements and that are really throwing the process, which they worked so hard to set up, off the back of the cart. They want to know why the government has done it and what the purpose is of this kind of action by the government. They want to know if it is simply because the party of one over in the Langevin Block has decided that this is the way it will go, that no one can interfere with that kind of decision making, that no one from the grassroots up can make a difference.The government is making rules for territories that actually need devolution. They need to control their own affairs. The government has actually thrown that particular process off the back of the cart. It is heading off in a different direction. People in the territories, my territory, Yukon, who have been influenced by these bills, now face the prospect of suing the government, of going forward with litigation in order to get rid of some of these contentious clauses, which nobody really wants, which do not make any sense and which are not part of any reduction of colonialism or changing the way these territories can govern themselves.We have put forward a number of amendments which deal with the four contentious issues. We would hope that the government, in the end, would come to its senses and would actually listen to the people of Yukon, industry and those who are involved in the actual work of Yukon, rather than sitting over on Langevin Block, and come to an understanding that these need to be removed to make this bill work. Then we could go ahead and all support it.Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsDennisBevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, the simplistic idea that has been proposed by the government is really one that goes against what people have worked very hard on throughout the north, and that is the relationship between aboriginal governments and public governments. This will be the determining factor in our ability to work together. Northerners have come to the decision that first nations governments have complete relevance in everything that goes on in our territories. In the minds of northerners, we do not separate first nations governance as a lesser force. We accept that these forces have to work together. We accept that the decision making has to involve that kind of jurisdictional sharing. What the government would do with this amendment is take it away from first nations and impact that kind of delegation of authority. I am sure there would be many things first nations could work very well with the public government in Yukon in this regard, but they need to be there at the table. Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonPaulinaAyalaHonoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a problem with the government. It came up with these four amendments after a complete process of years when it could have introduced them. It could have put them forward over that time. It could have talked about them. It could have tried to find some kind of accommodation within the system. It had the time. It had people dedicated to do that work. These are highly trained individuals. They do not miss these types of items. They do not say that they forgot about these four concerns and that they will throw them into the bill at a later date. This was a fairly carefully crafted little effort to avoid talking about the things that were controversial and then shoving them into the bill later. This is really not the way to do devolution in our territories. It is not the way to come up with agreements that can work for people.Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsPaulinaAyalaHonoré-MercierMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who I have spent time with on committee.When the government put these four amendments in after the fact, after its major consultation process that took place over a considerable period of time, there was such an outcry from first nations. The fact is that first nations have now requested, and have requested over the previous number of months, that the minister sit down with them and see how they can work to come to some kind of agreement on these four amendments. Where has the minister been? Where has the government been in trying to work this out with the first nations? Why have the Conservatives been so intransigent about these four amendments, which are quite obviously not supported by the first nations who are an important and vital part of any process that takes place in the Yukon?Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityFirst NationsLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose raised the issue about the significance of any adverse community, environmental or socio-economic effects that have occurred or might occur in conjunction with the project, and that this section was removed by our amendments. However, that is actually clause 9 in the bill and it still remains.Could my colleague comment on why the Conservative government might be trying to create some kind of doubt about the nature of our amendments at this time and trying to mislead the House about what we have taken out in these amendments?Amendments and subamendmentsDownload responsibilityLand managementReport stageReport stage motionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSenate billsJackHarrisSt. John's EastJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (2315)[English]Mr. Chair, I would like to address my questions to the minister. I will start with northern issues.The minister, in his dialogue with first nations in Yukon, indicated that the government does not consider first nations governments. Is the minister holding to that position?Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal self-governmentConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2015-2016Yukon TerritoryMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2315)[English]Mr. Chair, in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho and Sahtu Dene governments have already initiated court action over the Conservatives' creation of the environmental super board to replace regional boards created through the land claim agreements. Yukon first nations say they will do the same as soon as Bill S-6 is passed. Why does the minister believe that confrontation with aboriginal people in areas where they have a very responsible relationship with their existing governments is better than co-operation?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityEnvironmental assessmentLand managementLand useMain estimates 2015-2016Northwest TerritoriesS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActYukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment BoardBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2315)[English]Mr. Chair, the minister's efforts in both the Northwest Territories and Yukon have led to court actions, which are going to likely result in considerable delays and uncertainty in these two territories about the development of the resources that the government seems to want to push forward as quickly as possible. When he wants to increase investor certainty, why has he chosen to take these actions, which to most people in the North do not make any sense at all and are not required at all?Aboriginal peoplesC-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityEnvironmental assessmentLand managementLand useMain estimates 2015-2016Northwest TerritoriesS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2315)[English] Mr. Chair, would the minister be willing to accept the Yukon first nations invitation to work with federal and territorial officials to address the four areas of concern that they expressed to the Senate standing committee on September 25, 2014, in Ottawa and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on March 30, 2015, in Whitehorse? Is he willing to sit and work with them to try to solve some of these issues?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityFirst NationsLand managementMain estimates 2015-2016Public consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Chair, a simple yes or no would have been sufficient for the first nations in the Yukon, but I see we are not getting that. The minister jumped all over the place and ended with some platitude about perhaps meeting with them.Can the minister just simply say yes or no? Will he meet with the first nations of the Yukon to try to deal with the four outstanding issues under Bill S-6 or will he not?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityFirst NationsLand managementMain estimates 2015-2016Public consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Chair, I will move on to nutrition north.The first question I have for the minister is this: how did the department determine which communities were eligible for the new nutrition north program? What factors were considered?Aboriginal peoplesApplication processConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentFood supplyMain estimates 2015-2016Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Chair, of course the answers should follow the general delivery of the questions. That is the procedure we have in this committee.Why do communities like Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories; Fort Chipewyan, Alberta; Tadoule Lake, Manitoba; and Deer Lake, Ontario get no subsidy when they are isolated, remote northern communities where people require the food subsidy? Aboriginal peoplesApplication processConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentFood supplyMain estimates 2015-2016Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Chair, the minister knows full well that the Auditor General showed that the department had committed to reviewing the community eligibility status for these communities on an annual basis, but it has not completed annual reviews. These communities remain unsatisfied.Why has the minister's government not completed these reviews?Aboriginal peoplesApplication processConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentFood supplyMain estimates 2015-2016Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Chair, what part of “annual reviews” does the minister not understand? They would allow these very important changes to be made to these programs and these communities could be allowed to get some subsidy for their food. Why is the minister talking about reviews that are going to be done in the future, when the program has been in place for four years?Aboriginal peoplesApplication processConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentFood supplyMain estimates 2015-2016Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programRemote communitiesBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2325)[English]Mr. Chair, last summer the Nunavut Marine Council sent a letter to the minister demanding a full scale strategic environmental assessment of Baffin Bay and Davis Strait before any seismic testing was allowed. Without such a strategic investment, local communities would not support future oil and gas development the letter said.Why did the minister refuse this request?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentEnvironmental assessmentMain estimates 2015-2016Northern CanadaOil and gasBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2325)[English]Mr. Chair, this week the Nunavut Impact Review Board recommended that Resources Canada's proposed uranium mine near Baker Lake should not proceed. Will the minister accept this recommendation from the board or will he ignore the interests of the people in Nunavut and reject the board's recommendation?Aboriginal peoplesBaker LakeConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentEnvironmental assessmentMain estimates 2015-2016Mining industryNunavut Impact Review BoardNunavut TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2325)[English]Mr. Chair, this is another question coming from Nunavut. Six years after they were purchased, the materials for Gjoa Haven 29 metre bridge to span the Swan River sit gathering rust. The materials were bought with federal funding in 2009 through the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency's community adjustment fund, but no funding was provided to actually construct the bridge. How could this project have been approved without including construction costs, and will the minister ensure that Gjoa Haven has the funds needed to actually build the bridge?Aboriginal peoplesBridgesCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsMain estimates 2015-2016Nunavut TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2325)[English]Mr. Chair, for the minister with respect, the minister's department funds CanNor. He is responsible for it as well and the government is responsible for what it is does in these projects.Aboriginal peoplesBridgesCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsMain estimates 2015-2016Nunavut TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2325)[English]Mr. Chair, recently regulatory boards in Nunavut got a budget increase after years of asking. However, the government has refused to support the Nunavut planning board's funding request for the final round of technical and public hearings to develop the Nunavut land use plan. Without a land use plan, we will not see the kind of development the government wants to go ahead with in Nunavut. Why has the minister turned down this request?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentGovernment assistanceLand useMain estimates 2015-2016Nunavut Planning CommissionNunavut TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Feminine Hygiene Products]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. This debate could play out in the north in a different way because I am not too sure that our nutrition north program which subsidizes freight for some items would actually subsidize the freight for this medically required item. When we look at northern people and the costs of freighting for these types of goods, it probably doubles the cost for these types of products for northern women and it is something we need to look into with the whole subsidy program for northerners. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this up at this time.Feminine hygiene productsGoods and services taxNorthern CanadaOpposition motionsIreneMathyssenLondon—FanshaweIreneMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersAlberta ElectionInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories to congratulate Rachel Notley and the NDP on their election victory as a strong, stable, majority government for Alberta. The people of the NWT have a special relationship with Albertans. We regularly travel, trade, play and work in Alberta. Edmonton is our city for medical services, post-secondary education and all manner of supply and services. The NWT and Alberta share an ecosystem with northern Alberta included in the Mackenzie River watershed. Northerners, including my parents, came from Alberta. I salute the premier-elect and her Notley crew for running a marvellous campaign full of trust and change. Northerners will look forward to working with this new, exciting government. I am sure she will continue the productive relationship between Alberta and the NWT.AlbertaNew Democratic Party of AlbertaNotley, RachelProvincial and territorial electionsStatements by MembersWladyslawLizonMississauga East—CooksvilleBernardTrottierEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, a much-needed and long-overdue first step toward a true polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada. The NDP takes this very seriously. We view the phrase “polluter pays” as being one of the fundamental aspects of our approach to environmental legislation when we are government later on this year. I believe November would be when we would take over.I am pleased to see there has been co-operation and some degree of collegiality on the natural resources committee on this subject. That is an encouraging sign in a Parliament that has not had much collegiality over the five years of the Conservative majority mandate. It is good to see.Bill C-46 would open up a liability regime, which is sorely needed. There is none for existing pipelines and that is amazing when we think of the volume, number and lengths of pipelines throughout Canada, many of them crossing provincial boundaries, which would be regulated by the federal government. That is certainly the case for the pipelines that exit my riding, the Northwest Territories. The bill includes absolute liability for all National Energy Board regulated pipelines, which are those that cross provincial boundaries. I assume that includes all connections to those pipelines. There are web-like networks of pipeline throughout any pipeline system. Oil is collected from different locations in order to fill up a pipeline that might have a capacity of many hundreds of thousands of barrels a day.Companies would be liable for costs and damages irrespective of fault. This liability could go up to $1 billion for major oil pipelines, pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day, and up to an amount prescribed by regulation for smaller companies. That is an important proviso because many of the pipelines are not the size of 250,000 barrels a day. They come from smaller fields in isolated locations. I will speak to that in a bit.Companies would continue to have unlimited liability when they were at fault or negligent. Accidental leakages, I guess, would mean that pipeline companies are not at fault or negligent, but what does “negligence” mean toward the maintenance and repair of existing pipelines? What does it mean with regard to engineering? If the engineering is inappropriate for the laying of a pipeline, is that considered fault or negligence upon the pipeline company? Some real decision will have to be made by government about what negligence or fault is part of the system, especially for smaller pipelines where perhaps there is less intensity in the environmental process when it comes to putting the pipelines in place.Bill C-46 leaves considerable leeway for politically motivated decisions and backroom arrangements between operators and the National Energy Board. That is what we are talking about: how do we determine the responsibilities under this act? This also applies to many of the amendments to numerous environmental acts in recent budget implementation bills. We have changed the system considerably over the time of the Conservatives, mostly to weaken legislation that deals with environmental issues.(1630)We have had several pipeline spills in recent history in my riding in the Northwest Territories. Those have come from an industry, mostly located in the Norman Wells area, that has been in place for a considerable length of time. That industry has been in the Northwest Territories since the early 1930s. We have seen that develop over time. We have a pipeline that has a capacity for 45,000 barrels a day that exits the Zama Lake in northern Alberta.In early May of 2011, a hunter discovered oil leaking from the Enbridge Normal Wells pipeline near the Willowlake River about 50 kilometres south of the community of Wrigley. Enbridge estimated as much as 1,500 barrels of oil leaked from the pipeline. Of course the people in Wrigley were concerned about the impacts of that on the environment and on human health, as well as on the health of the animals and wildlife, which they sincerely use to a great extent for food. This was not a simple matter. It ended up resulting in many thousands of truckloads of material being hauled to the Swan Hills disposal site at a great cost. When we we talk about pipelines and 1,500 barrels people wonder what that is. However, when we have to deal with the dirt, the conditions and perform a complete cleanup, it gets very expensive. A lot of money was put into the cleanup that 1,500 barrels.That is not the only incidence of spills we have had. The community of Norman Wells, where Imperial Oil has a refinery, ranks as the community with the most reported incidents of federally regulated pipelines in the country. Between 2006 and 2012, the National Energy Board recorded more than 70 incidents, including anything from spills and leaks to worker injuries and fires. We are talking about pipelines that are not new and perhaps not built to the changing conditions of the northern climate. In that area near Norman Wells, scientists have reported losses of up to 40% of the permafrost over the period of a decade. Therefore, we have serious issues with changing conditions. With respect to the pipelines that were built before, the engineering was based on different circumstances. Those types of things lead to problems.In 2012, the National Energy Board ordered Imperial Oil to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with 77 buried pipelines at risk of failing. Therefore, we do have some issues with pipelines in northern conditions. I cannot speak to all of the pipeline issues across the country. There is no question that many aging pipelines are used for the product around Canada. How many of them are provincially controlled and how many are federally controlled I am sure is of concern to everyone.These 77 buried pipelines, some of which stretch for several kilometres, were installed during a boom in the oilfield expansion in the 1980s. A particular defect in engineering and construction allowed water to get between the pipe insulation and the bare steel leading to corrosion. Therefore, we have pipelines that are suspect and will likely cause problems in the future. As the corrosion gets worse the pipelines, under stress from changing soil conditions, may actually rupture. Corrosion can also cause pinhole leaks that without proper monitoring equipment on these pipelines can release a lot of oil before anybody even realizes what is going on. Imperial Oil first identified the problem in 2011, after discovering oil seeping to the surface on Bear Island from one of its well sites in the middle of the Mackenzie River. We had leakage in one of our major pristine rivers in the north. Of course there is concern about that. Over the next year and a half, the company found a total of six leaks. Cleanup involved the excavation of thousands of cubic metres of contaminated soil. That soil had to be moved a very long distance in order to deal with it.(1635)In 2004, a curious black bear caused an oil spill near Fort Simpson. About 12,000 litres of oil leaked out after the animal accidentally opened a valve at an Enbridge pipeline site. Is there culpability in that type of leak? Is somebody responsible for ensuring that pipeline valves are protected from the ability of black bears to manipulate them? Of course. The pipeline company's responsibility is to build pipelines that are safe and can live up to any kind of expectation. If a black bear could release a valve, so could people. We had a problem with the type of thing.These NWT leaks are small in comparison to the roughly 28,000 barrels of crude oil spilled from a plains midstream Canada pipeline near Little Buffalo, Alberta in May 2011, or the massive 9.5 million litre leak near Zama, Alberta in June 2013 from Apache Canada's pipeline. That leak contaminated 42 hectares of boreal forest in northern Alberta. We need stronger legislation and a stronger approach to pipeline issues in Canada. We cannot simply say that we have the very best, because the very best might have been that way 30 or 40 years ago when the pipeline was first put in place, but these things do not last forever. We can see that in the oil industry throughout the world. Pipeline degradation leads to leaks.Whether the amount of oil is big or small, the damage to the environment is considerable, and we have to recognize that. Costs will be encountered. This legislation has loopholes within it that do not define precisely what polluters must pay. That it where our concerns are. We are still happy that we are getting something in place, but it is not the full thing I think we would look for from important legislation like this because of the nature and age of the industry in Canada, the need to fully monitor pipelines in an effective fashion so when leaks occur, they are caught as soon as they possibly can be. We are all concerned about those things.In February 2013, an Enbridge excavation crew encountered contaminated soil in the immediate vicinity of Enbridge Line 21, which is the main Norman Wells pipeline, in two locations. The location in the first dig was kilometre post 457 on a line approximately 60 kilometres west of Fort Simpson. The second was at kilometre post 391. These two small leaks contaminated 100 cubic metres of soil.As pipelines age, these sorts of issues start to become more and more, so it is very important that industry, dealing with aging equipment, provides the best possible care and attention to that equipment to ensure these leaks are found early and dealt with.How does fault and negligence apply to existing operating systems for the pipelines that were approved many years ago by the National Energy Board? How do we ensure that the operating systems for these pipelines are brought up to a level that matches to the extent that the pipelines could have these problems?While Bill C-46 makes some important improvements to Canada's pipeline liability regime, it does not unequivocally require polluters to pay. This undermines improvements and leaves uncertainty whether taxpayers will still be on the hook, in many cases for cleanup costs greater than the $1 billion where negligence or fault cannot be proved.(1640)Basically, what we are saying here is that the very small problems are going to be covered. Larger problems, with this whole question of fault and negligence, are going to be at the discretion, I would assume, of the National Energy Board to come up with decisions. Just imagine the pressure and the lobbying efforts that could be made by various senators and other people for pipeline companies in this regime. As well as the National Energy Board being involved in these decisions, I understand the cabinet is or can be involved as well.Ensuring that those who are responsible for making a mess clean it up is an important principle. We just went through an exercise with the nuclear industry, where we have limited their liability even after we have seen the complete disaster that took place at Fukushima, which cost exponentially more than what our limits are for the nuclear industry in Canada.Why do we do this? It is because these industries simply cannot make the types of insurance arrangements for the kind of liability that they might incur. That is one of the problems we have in this industrial age, understanding how we can ensure that companies can carry the proper liability insurance or have the proper bond in place so that when things do go bad, the government is not left on the hook.One of the greater examples of this is the Yellowknife Giant Mine where 237,000 tons of arsenic is going to be stored underground by the government in perpetuity at costs well in excess of $1 billion.Things happen in many industries that we need to be very careful about, on prevention, ensuring that regulation and oversight is robust, and that the environmental assessment process leading to projects is also robust, so that we can be assured that when we are planning for the development of new pipelines, care and attention is put to every detail. I think of the Mackenzie gas pipeline and its environmental assessment process that everyone complained took so long, so many years. There were still no answers about what was going on with the pipeline, for the changing and the nature of the permafrost in northern Canada. It still did not get to that, and all the questions were not answered.Environmental assessment is very important. Unfortunately, the record of the government is weakening environment protections. What this means is that by failing to do a rigorous environmental assessment before a project starts, there is a greater likelihood of problems later on. That is the result.In the Northwest Territories, first nations are in court fighting against the Conservatives' gutting of the environmental regulatory system contrary to their constitutionally protected land claims and self-government agreements. The first nations are not happy that in the Sahtu region, where the pipelines are in the Northwest Territories, they are losing their regional boards, which could give them significant input into decisions that are made about pipelines to ensure that they understand the process is working best for them. Yukon first nations are preparing for a similar court fight if Bill S-6 ever becomes law.Progressive companies, on the other hand, have found that high environmental standards actually work to their benefit, if they are selling product in the world. We heard the premier-elect of Alberta talking about that last night, talking about the need to raise the standards of Alberta so that its products can be better accepted around the world. That job is important, to ensure that what we are doing in Canada meets every rigorous requirement. Through that process, we can achieve better results.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that we were supporting Bill C-46. It is a step in the right direction.However, in terms of how I see the industry, in totality, acting, I think we do need more efforts put into the legislation that could provide the safeguards that we need. That is simple enough.We will go ahead and support the legislation going forward. I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question, but I certainly did refer to it in my speech.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationThird reading and adoptionKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—BiggarKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think when it comes to the question of pipelines or rail, it is not simply either-or. Take the case of the shale oil developments that are very common now throughout western Canada and the United States, in particular, the Bakken field. These drilling sites may provide oil at a certain rate for 18 months or two years. They drop off very quickly. Many companies will not make the investment in a pipeline for a resource that may not last that long. They may have to move to other sites. In that case, there are companies that will want to use rail because that is the only way they can really justify the expense of doing the project.We could argue and we could talk about what is the proper development but, in some cases, we have to look at what is going on in the industry.In the case of pipelines, of course, we are committed to looking at pipelines, but through a rigorous environmental process that can give us answers. When we see what has happened in British Columbia, with the northern gateway pipeline, that one quite obviously has a high risk, perhaps not just with the pipeline itself but with where it delivers the oil and the process of the oil going across the ocean afterwards.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDanyMorinChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question, and I think that is where the New Democratic Party wanted to strengthen the bill. Perhaps we did not get all the amendments we wanted in committee or at report stage. The fact that two amendments were struck, out of some 41 that were put forward by the parties, I do not think indicates a real appetite for making sure that the bill was brought up to the level that we think it should be. The bill was pretty well kept to where the Conservative government has designed it to be, where an opportunity existed for letting somebody off the hook. Companies that have one type of influence or other over the proceedings of the National Energy Board or through cabinet have some opportunity to be let off the hook. This is part of the problem when we deal with legislation like this: we open up those loopholes. It is certainly not the policy of the NDP to do that. Of course, that is why we brought forward the motions that we did.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationThird reading and adoptionDanyMorinChicoutimi—Le FjordChrisCharltonHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty broad question to deal with in one minute and 45 seconds, but I will give it a shot.In terms of what has happened here with the bill, when we separate large pipelines, which are generally held by large corporations with fairly deep pockets, from smaller pipelines that may not have that same degree of protection in terms of fiscal ability to cover the cost of cleanups, then within that range of smaller pipelines, cabinet would have the discretion to set the stage as it sees fit. This means that these companies might well be given much more leniency when it comes to spills. However, a smaller pipeline, as I spoke about in my presentation, can cause a lot of problems as well. They can cause a lot of issues and expense in cleanup.Therefore, I would think that we need a much stricter interpretation of some of these rules. We should not leave it entirely in the hands of either the appointed National Energy Board or the cabinet.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationThird reading and adoptionChrisCharltonHamilton MountainPatPerkinsWhitby—Oshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNothern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada's two-year reign over the Arctic Council has been labelled a failure by the international community.Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the north, and the Conservatives chose to ignore it. The United States have taken charge and declared that the Arctic Council will return to critical issues, like the impact of Arctic climate change, the development of renewable energy, public education, monitoring ocean acidification.Why did the government waste two years of Arctic Council time and spoil its efforts on the international stage?ArcticArctic CouncilClimate change and global warmingNorthern CanadaOral questionsPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—CarletonRobNicholsonHon.Niagara Falls//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, Canada's out-of-step business agenda in the Arctic Council was an international embarrassment. The very moment the United States took over the council chairmanship, the agenda shifted, rightly, back to the urgent issue of climate change. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, “This is not a future challenge. This is happening right now.” Why did the government waste a critical opportunity to work with the Arctic nations to address climate change for the whole two years of its chairmanship?ArcticArctic CouncilCanada-United States relationsClimate change and global warmingOral questionsPollutionLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, a report by the chaplain for Joint Task Force North shows that there have been a significant number of deaths of Rangers and junior rangers over the past three years. The Rangers shoulder the important burden of protecting our north, carrying out their duty in Canada's harshest environment. Can the minister tell us how many of our brave Rangers have died and what Canadian Forces mental health services are available to our eyes and ears in the north?Canadian ForcesCanadian RangersDeaths and funeralsNorthern CanadaOral questionsAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleJulianFantinoHon.Vaughan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Rangers need action, not words.During the Conservatives' turn at the helm of the Arctic Council, they moved away from its mandate of research, environmental protection, and co-operation to one of resource exploitation and confrontation with our Arctic neighbours. The Conservatives' failed domestic northern strategy has resulted in less food security, a higher cost of living, and the trampling of aboriginal rights.When is the government going to bring in policies that actually support northerners and not just make a few large southern companies rich?Arctic CouncilEconomic developmentNorthern CanadaNorthern StrategyOral questionsJulianFantinoHon.VaughanLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, northerners are deeply concerned about the position of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that the three territories are the same and that their environmental laws should be uniform. In committee, the minister went on and on about how the government's plan is to have the same laws governing the land and water of all three territories. Any northerner would tell us that we cannot treat the territories the same. This paternalistic approach by the Conservatives is completely wrong. Each territory is unique, with different demographics, different geography, different cultures, and different relationships with aboriginal governments. We have fought for years to create our identities. The minister and his Conservative colleagues instead tell northerners that that their uniqueness, issues, concerns, and political relationships are of no importance to them. Northerners are fighting back. The NWT' s Tlicho First Nation has won an injunction against the creation of the environmental super-board, and Yukon first nations are already preparing their court case to stop Bill S-6. Conservative Members from the north, listen up, the opposition will be heard at the ballot box.Aboriginal peoplesDownload responsibilityEnvironmental protectionLand managementS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActStatements by MembersMarkAdlerYork CentrePatPerkinsWhitby—Oshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMilitary Contribution Against ISILInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to stand and ask my colleague a question. At the end, he spoke very strongly about how he sees that Canada has a role to play. Canada could have many roles to play. This is a role that the Conservative Party has chosen to play in this conflict. My understanding is that the conflict in Syria and Iraq is moving into the urban centres. We are going to be playing a role in which our airplanes, without guidance from allied sources, are going to be bombing urban centres. That is going to lead to civilian casualties. That is the role Canada is taking on with this conflict right now. This is a role that I do not think is appropriate for Canada right now. Canada can do much better in the field of humanitarian efforts.How does my colleague feel about the situation that is going to occur when Canadian airplanes are causing civilian casualties throughout that region?Canadian ForcesGovernment Business No. 17Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsNational securityTerrorism and terroristsWar victimsErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMilitary Contribution Against ISILInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving us his interpretation of the events here. When we look at the situation in Syria and Iraq, we see that ISIL is the most well-funded and most well-positioned terrorist organization that we have seen in the world to date.What has the government done in terms of working diplomatically through its allies to reduce the financial resources of ISIL, to close off the exchange of oil from its territories that it is occupying now, so that we can actually stifle the ability of this group to do the type of aggressive action that it is doing right now?Canadian ForcesEconomic sanctionsGovernment Business No. 17Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsNational securityTerrorism and terroristsJamesBezanSelkirk—InterlakeJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1450)[English]The government will never learn from its mistakes, Mr. Speaker. After ramming through its plan to do away with regional environmental boards in the Northwest Territories, the Conservatives are now stalled by an injunction handed to them by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and they will likely face the same kind of legal action from Yukon first nations over Bill S-6.When will the Conservatives get it? Gutting environmental protection and altering land claims agreements just simply lead to more uncertainty and legal actions.Aboriginal land claimsDownload responsibilityEnvironmental protectionLand managementNorthern CanadaOral questionsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, another flawed bill and another long and wasteful court fight with first nations: that is where the minister is going.It is not just first nations that have a problem with the legislation. In a letter sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last fall, the president of Casino Mining expressed concerns about the “negative impact this is having on the territory’s mineral industry”. The Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon is also opposed.Why pursue a bill that will not stand up in court and is opposed by both first nations and businesses? Where is the certainty in that?Download responsibilityLand managementOral questionsPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a food crisis in northern Canada, and the Conservatives misled Canadians about fixing it. Just before the Auditor General's report, the Conservatives claimed there would be an extra $11 million in the nutrition north program. Including that money, the yearly total is what they have been spending since the program started.Why did the Conservatives mislead Canadians and northerners about the money in this program, and where is the $7 million extra needed for the 50 communities that are not included in the program?Government expendituresNutrition North Canada programOral questionsLisaRaittHon.HaltonBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAnti-terrorism Act, 2015InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, though many of my colleagues in the House who would also like an opportunity to speak to such an important bill that mixes security and freedom will not have one because we are under time allocation. Bill C-51 makes it very clear that the Prime Minister meant what he said when he remarked that we would not recognize Canada when he got through with the bill. The party of one will make sure that this country is not the same after his reign is finished. We will not recognize Canada after Bill C-51 is made law and used for many years. We will not recognize what this bill can do to Canada, including today when we stand to speak about a couple of jihadist threats that have potentially occurred in Canada and speak about the bill in that regard. We will not recognize what the bill would do to Canada because it will come in the actions of CSIS over many years, as CSIS uses its new powers to work in Canadian society and, through Bill C-44, in various ways abroad to change the very nature of Canadian society.The Conservative Prime Minister has demonstrated time and again that disagreement is not something he tolerates or understands. In fact, we heard the former Public Safety minister Vic Toews call environmentalists eco-terrorists in 2012. The current finance minister, in his time as natural resources minister, basically made the same kinds of remarks.We live in a world where we know that we have to balance the environment and the economy and where those questions require debate, disagreement and, many times, civil confrontation. Now there would be a new set of rules. It is hard to think that that type of interaction could in any way be a threat to national security when we talk about how we are balancing what we do in this country between the environment and the economy, but that is quite clearly laid out in this bill. It underlies this bill.This bill would likely create even greater divisions and alienation in our society than exist now. That is generally what happens when there is more authoritarian and secretive behaviour in society, with more opportunities for collusion under the law to take out the people who are not liked or the people who are somehow thought to be threats to Canada.When one views the government's actions and words of concern about environmentalists, it is understandable that many Canadians are starting to speak up about Bill C-51. Yes, the initial poll showed that a lot of Canadians liked the idea of security against terrorism; but did they understand what was in the bill, and are the Conservatives allowing them to understand that by continuing this debate in the House of Commons? No, they are not. They are closing the debate down because they know darn well that as this debate continues and things come out, others will ask for a better bill and a better understanding of the nature of what the Conservatives are proposing.To be specific, Bill C-51 threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms. It asks Canadians to choose, but the Conservatives do not actually ask Canadians; they simply put this bill forward, apply closure, and send it through committee in very little time. That is what will happen. (1550)A bill like this should take time. We should be at it for months, maybe a year, getting the bill right. We do not have any rush. After Air India, we did not change anything for many years. We did not have significant problems. We are not having significant problems today.Bill C-51 was not developed in consultation with other parties. That is very much the case. This thing was brought up in a very big rush after October 2014, as we heard commentators from the Conservatives Party say here today.The bill irresponsibly provides CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight. Actually, there is no oversight; there is review, and we need to keep those separate. There is the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is not an oversight committee but a review committee that looks at things the agency has done long after it is finished. Oversight says more immediacy. The Conservatives say that a judge will do that, but only if CSIS takes it to a judge. In many cases, they may not.I want to talk about threat disruption, which is an interesting subject. When we think of groups that may be formed to do something the government opposes, like environmental action, CSIS might say, “Then if they might do something unlawful in the future, perhaps we should get involved right now to deal with threat disruption. Maybe we should put a CSIS member into that organization. Maybe we should undermine the organization first before it becomes a problem”. That would fit under the law. That is called threat disruption. If we disrupt something before the unlawful action is taken, how can anyone prove there was unlawful action? This works both ways. We can disrupt people now because we think in the future they may do something wrong. The bill does not provide anything to make our society work better. The bill does not do anything to build communities, to build understanding—absolutely nothing. It is all secretive. It is all behind the scenes. There is nothing here that says we have a job to do in our society to bring people together.When we look at the promotion of terrorism, how can we judge that? How can we judge the promotion of terrorism? What is incitement to terrorism? Is it someone saying that their son or daughter has been injured, that they are angry about it and that they do not like what the government has done. Is that incitement to terrorism? What is being suggested in this?Quite obviously the government has made the bill so large that it simply cannot answer those questions today. How will we answer them in the future? It will only be through the actions of what happens here. If we have oversight by parliamentarians, we may have a chance to control some of the bill going forward. If we do not, then we will rely on non-elected individuals to determine what the bill does, and that is simply wrong.Why do we not deal with this in a better fashion than what the government has proposed to do? Why did we go in this direction? The party of one is responsible for this. The Prime Minister would not come into Parliament and stand to speak to the bill. He chose to do it somewhere where he did not have anyone to criticize him, to ask him questions. Why would someone make such a large effort to promote the bill without that type of commentary in the House? I really find that wrong-headed, but it is more the style of this Prime Minister, the party of one.Clearly, we oppose the bill. We will continue to oppose the bill because it is not done right. It will not protect Canadians. It will affect their rights in the future. We do not understand exactly how it will affect their rights, but it will do that without the proper oversight of parliamentarians.C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsC-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsNational securityOversight mechanismSecond readingTerrorism and terroristsBryanHayesSault Ste. MarieDavidSweetAncaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAnti-terrorism Act, 2015InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, to answer that I think I would go back to another generation, my father's generation, and the individuals who went to fight for our freedoms and values in the Second World War. They did not fight there to lose those values or to see them taken away by legislation in the House. Therefore, when we deal with those types of issues, when we think of the 50,000 individuals who died in the Second World War while standing up for those rights and freedoms, then we of course deal with this very carefully. What the government has proposed does not allow us to do that. The legislation is far too broad. I have pointed out a number of areas that we need to work on. If the government does not want to work on these, if it continues in the same fashion it has had with all the other legislation it has brought before Parliament in the last four years of its majority term, this simply will go ahead.C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsNational securitySecond readingTerrorism and terroristsDavidSweetAncaster—Dundas—Flamborough—WestdaleKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAnti-terrorism Act, 2015InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, the reality of what we will do with this bill will be clear tonight when we vote against it. That is very clear. There will not be any question about what our motives or our intentions are tonight. We will vote against it.The Liberals are the ones who are jumping up and down and squirming in their seat trying to figure out how they can both support and not support it. We do not like this legislation. We do not think it is proper. We will vote against it tonight. C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsNational securitySecond readingTerrorism and terroristsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAnti-terrorism Act, 2015InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44, the bill that went through the House previously, gave CSIS the ability to work outside the country and only obey Canadian laws. That is something that other international spy agencies do, but we have not done so in the past. Now we have a situation where we will do this type of work, which will obviously come back on us should others do the same to us. I think Canada has changed its whole international perspective of trying to bring countries together and conciliate into an incredible jingoistic approach, a man-with-a-big-hat-and-no-cattle approach. C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsC-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsForeign countriesGovernment billsIntelligenceNational securitySecond readingTerrorism and terroristsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsStellaAmblerMississauga South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodParks CanadaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' drastic cuts to Parks Canada have forced parks to scale back or shut their gates for winter, and now volunteers are needed to keep many of Canada's national parks open. An $800-million investment in parks can produce $5 billion in economic activity, supporting local jobs and communities. Parks like Wood Buffalo need strong support, especially to increase tourism.Why are the Conservatives abandoning Canada's national parks?Budget cutsNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesOral questionsParks Canada AgencyGeraldKeddySouth Shore—St. Margaret'sLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersParliamentary Precinct Security [Motion that debate be not further adjourned]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is the parliamentarians' watch here right now on the future of this Parliament, so of course it is very serious what we are doing today, and the speed at which we are moving is not appropriate. There has not been an official report that parliamentarians have had a chance to review over the incident that happened in October, so three and a half months have gone by without that. We have not seen any of the improvements that the Chief Government Whip has talked about to understand what those do to the situation in Parliament. Without that kind of technical information, for us to move ahead with any kind of change to the philosophy and structure of the House is really unfortunate.Will the Chief Government Whip put forward the information that he does have? When will we see that information?ClosureGovernment Business No. 14Parliamentary precinctSecurity servicesAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration Resumed of MotionInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1930)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising to debate the motion before us and the amendments that have been made to it. Of course, the NDP is not opposed to the idea of an integrated security force operating in the parliamentary precinct. That is an idea that most of us have a good feeling about and think would improve the general security of the place. However, the problem is what has happened here to start with and then looking at the details of the motion. To start with, when we have an opportunity for parliamentarians to make the rules for Parliament, there should be a process that engages parliamentarians and not a process that comes from the Prime Minister's Office. That is not appropriate for dealing with the rules that govern us as parliamentarians. We all understand that, but the Conservatives seem to be willing to go along with the idea that a party of one gets to make the choices in this House of Commons for all of us.What we have before us is a motion that calls on the Speaker to “invite without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police...”Therefore, once the motion is passed, the Speaker has his orders. He is going to invite, without delay, without discussion, the RCMP to lead operational security. That is the essence of what is happening here. Everything else around it is on qualifications that may or may not come into play. However, that is what will happen from this motion, which is what we are here for today. We talk about the privilege of the House and the continued employment of our existing parliamentary security staff, but those are things that can or may be put into place, or they may continue in one way or another. However, it is that the RCMP would take over and lead operational security for this parliamentary precinct. That is what is going to happen.How do we feel about the actions of the security team in October, which is what has driven the party of one, the Prime Minister, to put forward this motion? We all saw what happened. We all have our ideas about what went wrong or right on that day. We can look back and ask ourselves if the people in our security service within this House, many whom have worked here for many years and recognize every one of us, were the most important element in what happened on that day. I think we can say yes. We saw what happened outside of the grounds.We could say that there are technical issues outside of the grounds. Why do we not have electronic locks on the main doors in this place? Why do we not have secondary barriers on the roads leading up to this place? What are we doing about the people on two-wheeled vehicles who roar up the Hill? Nothing. We do have some technical issues on the grounds around Parliament that we need to deal with. We obviously have problems with access to the buildings when someone can walk in without anyone stopping them. There are issues that need to be dealt with, but they are not issues that need to change the way that Parliament is run and the way parliamentarians take care of themselves. These are technical issues. They are issues that should be worked on by security experts who can put them in place, who can make sure that procedures outside the grounds and inside the House are adequate for our protection and respect the nature of Parliament. We do not need to change the relationship to do that. My concern about the grounds goes back to an incident in September 2011, when members of the RCMP, in response to the Keystone pipeline protest, put up massive barricades. They shut down the main stairs leading up to the middle of the parliamentary grounds. They positioned people on tops of buildings. There was a crowd of 1,000 people, and they were very concerned about controlling it.(1935)As a member of Parliament, I wanted to access the stairs. I told the RCMP that I wanted to stand on the stairs and talk to people in the crowd. The officers told me I could not do that. When I asked the officers under what authority were they doing this, they said the authority was in a book in the House of Commons. I told them to get the book. When they opened it, they apologized and told me to stand where I wished.Those RCMP officers did not understand the relationship of parliamentarians to Parliament. Some of them are here for a year or two; some are here maybe a bit longer. They are not like our security staff. They do not understand the nature of Parliament and the parliamentarians who work here and represent Canadians within this building. We do not want to see that change. We do not want to see the relationship we have with this building change over technical issues that should be fixed and can be fixed.When I was transport critic in the last Parliament, I spent time on aviation security. It was clear that once security rules are put in place, they stay in place, whether they become rather insignificant and meaningless later on. We went through a process in transport committee and we heard from many witnesses. When we begin locking the cockpit door of an airplane so that no one can enter it, it changes the nature of what can go into the cabin. An individual cannot open a properly locked cockpit door with a pair of scissors. Threatening someone in the cabin is then like threatening somebody anywhere else. Threats were made, so rules were finally changed.The Israelis laugh at some of the things that we do here. They have the best security system in the world, but we get into a fixed position about what we think security is and we are then not adaptable to the changes that can take place.We do need to adapt, but we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. We cannot make this Parliament less than it is. This is our watch. We are standing this watch. This is the watch that all of us in this Parliament represent at this time. What we do here to change the rules for how our Parliament behaves is important. It cannot be done simply at the whim of the party of one. The party of one does not have the right to do that to us in this Parliament. We all know what the party of one means here, and no one could deny that.The differences between the RCMP and the security people in the House are really quite apparent. The security people here look on this as their career. They learn to work with us. They know each other and all of us personally. They understand how this place works when we are here and when we are somewhere else.What is the likelihood of the RCMP understanding that? RCMP officers have a couple of years on the Hill and then move on. Some rookies from Regina might be brought in and put to work on the Hill. What kind of guarantee is that of the total understanding of the relationship of parliamentarians to Parliament, of respect for the people who work in here, of understanding our job and our authority within the House? There is no guarantee. This is a dangerous place to go. We do not need to go there. We should go back and put this in front of a group of parliamentarians. We should come together and make an agreement among ourselves. We are not far away. Two amendments have been made to the government's motion, one from the opposition and one from the third party. We are not far apart. Let us bring them together. Let us put this together in a good fashion.Government Business No. 14Parliamentary precinctRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceSecurity servicesPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-MadeleineRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration Resumed of MotionInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of ideas. I think that a system of electronic locks on the doors that both the RCMP and the security service have the ability to lock from a distance would be a good idea.When I look at the bollards that were installed, I think of how many terrorists ride scooters. They could simply scooter their way through there and not be stopped by that very expensive system that was put in. There are things we should do, technical things that need to be accomplished on the Hill to provide safety. I do not have a problem with that. The Speaker and the technical security experts should come together to understand how to make this place safer. I do not think we have done a very good job of it yet. I think we can do a much better job.However, what I do not want to change is the relationship of parliamentarians with their own security system. It is fine to change the building or the layout, but the most important thing that we do in this House is represent people as the authority of Canadians. We cannot give that up.Government Business No. 14Parliamentary precinctSecurity servicesRyanLeefYukonBruceHyerThunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration Resumed of MotionInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize anything that happened as the fault of any individual. I think the system was at fault. Clearly, there are technical issues with respect to the grounds around here that need to be fixed. They were not fixed by the security ideas the last group came up with, so we need to have another look at that.Why would we give the lead to the RCMP? There is some concern that it would be a movement away from the legislature into the executive, and that needs to be allayed by the use of very precise wording. That wording is not there right now. I have read the motion, and it is not in there.Government Business No. 14Parliamentary precinctSecurity servicesBruceHyerThunder Bay—Superior NorthPeterMacKayHon.Central Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Tape Reduction ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-21, an act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. It is a good bumper sticker for Conservative politics later on in this year. It is also a bill that is in some ways very confusing. If we take the basic premise that we will get rid of a regulation for every regulation we create, that logically says there are quite a number of regulations that do not need to be on the books right now. Why does the government not do some homework and identify the regulations that are not important to the Canadian public, to businesses and to the happiness of the Canadian state and simply eliminate those regulations? Would that not make more sense than tying up the time of the House of Commons with a bill that really does not nail anything down? It simply lays out a pattern that can or cannot be obeyed. It is sort of like the elections limits law earlier in my time in Parliament. People could follow it if they wanted or they did not have to follow itThe President of the Treasury Board may establish policy or issue directives respecting the manner in which the rules can be applied. We have another law that is really for public consumption. It really will not affect too much in the way that business regulations are set or not set in Parliament.For instance, it says in the preamble of the bill that the one-for-one rule may not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy. It is in the part of the bill that is not law. It simply talks about the bill. Where Conservatives outline their concerns about where we should not touch regulations on a one-to-one basis, it really is inappropriate, it does not work and it is not part of any requirement of government to follow.Environment, immigration or human rights are not mentioned. A whole number of things are not mentioned. The Conservatives' thoughts are very different from their thoughts about foreign regulation or how to sell the Canadian public on the idea they are taking care of the economy, the economy being a very complex organism which has social, cultural and environmental aspects to it at all times.I was a small businessman for many years in the Northwest Territories. I dealt with small businesses in limited markets under very difficult conditions. Regulations set out a pathway for businesses in many cases. They provide, and should provide, a mechanism by which business people can conduct their business in a good and proper fashion. That is the purpose of regulation. Regulations put everyone on a level playing field. Everyone is required to abide by regulations.Within the economy, there are some rules and conduct that can make business work. Therefore, regulations are very important. To simply deal with regulations in this rather cavalier fashion, saying that for every new regulation we create we are going to take one away, is patently absurd.Let us go back to the environment. The Conservatives have been changing environmental laws to help large resource developers to effect their businesses better in the three northern territories. That has not worked very well for them. With the changes to the NWT environmental legislation that occurred last year along with devolution, they are now in court with first nations over those changes.(1525)Now we have uncertainty in the Northwest Territories about how development is going to proceed because of those changes. Now the government has decided to do a somewhat similar thing in Yukon with Bill S-6. It would make changes to the Yukon environmental legislation.The bill has created a firestorm among first nations and ordinary Yukon citizens right across the territory. The people of Yukon understand that the best way for developers to proceed is with the full understanding and co-operation of first nations.What the government has done in both territories is created this chasm and brought legislation forward which has the exact opposite effect of what it says it is trying to do. I think this bill will probably be similar in some ways.As I said earlier, if regulations are not appropriate, they should be taken down. We should not wait until another regulation comes along to decide that a regulation is not appropriate anymore. That really is an unbelievably inane way of conducting government.The NDP has some sensible suggestions for small business. What are we going through right now in Canada? We have a dollar that has dropped by about 20%. What does that do for small businesses that want to innovate and expand their production base, much of which would be imported machinery?What we need is an innovation tax credit to encourage investments in machinery, especially at this time when we are dealing with 80¢ dollars that have to buy equipment from countries that have a better exchange rate, like the United States.The NDP tax innovation credit is a good idea. It is an idea for 2015, for the situation in which we exist today. The New Democrats would also extend the accelerated capital cost allowance, which would allow businesses to quickly write off the cost of processing equipment and machinery. This allowance is set to expire this year. At the very time it is needed most, it is going to expire.Hopefully over the course of this year, as the government changes, we will be able to put some of these things into effect. As well, cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% and then to 9% is a good solid idea. Small businesses create jobs, they grow communities and they provide services to those who would not have them otherwise.We do not see multinational corporations investing in small business in my communities in the Northwest Territories. We see the average Joe, the person who has a few dollars and wants to make a difference putting that to work in his community. A lower tax rate for those people ensures that the money will circulate within the economy. Lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations with multitudinous shareholders all over the world means that the money is dispersed to other sources, dead money in many cases, sitting in banks, good to no one at all. Perhaps we should have a look at other ways to activate that money. That is something the NDP government can look at as it moves into the future.I have a minute left, and that is probably all the bill deserves. It is really does nothing. The way it is set up it will be meaningless in the future. It is just another wasted effort on the part of the Conservative government to try to show how it can use symbols rather than real work to persuade Canadians that it is on their side.BureaucracyC-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businessesCompaniesGovernment billsOne-for-one ruleS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoptionRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole HarbourMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Tape Reduction ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his question. Of course, it is an interesting question. I think, perhaps, that as a rookie member of Parliament, he might not yet understand how Parliament actually works. There is the government, and there is the opposition. The opposition opposes the government. It is an adversarial system we work in. For the Conservatives to continue to talk about our voting record on their budgets is facetious, because this is the system we live in and work in.If we lived and worked in a different parliamentary system, where every person voted on every particular issue as they saw fit, then the Conservatives might have an argument, but they do not. They just have hot air.BureaucracyC-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businessesCompaniesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Tape Reduction ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, and I will repeat something from my speech that will answer it.I said at the time that if there are regulations that are inappropriate that are within the purview of the government to change, well then it should change them, and do a decent job. It should do a review of regulations in one sector or another and get rid of the ones that are not required. However, to put forward a bill that says that if we put a new regulation here we will have to pull another one out there, willy-nilly, is really not the way government should operate. We should operate from the basis of review, understanding, research, and conclusions, not from a point of view of putting up one and taking away another. It is really ridiculous and inappropriate for the way for the government should operate.BureaucracyC-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businessesCompaniesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Tape Reduction ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I hate to think what the cost of putting the bill through this process has been. It is expensive, and it takes away from other more important things that could be done within the current Parliament. For that matter, whether we vote on it today or tomorrow, the vote for us will be the same: we do not think it is necessary, and we are not going to vote for it.BureaucracyC-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businessesCompaniesGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole HarbourMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Newfoundland and Labrador Fisheries Investment Fund]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, at some point in my colleague's speech, which was a good speech and which I listened to in its entirety, he seemed to lose the focus of the question today, which is about the nature of an agreement made between two governments in this country. He said it was a fantasy of the NDP that there was some problem with this agreement. That is not the case. Obviously, the government of Newfoundland, the party that is aggravated by this action of the federal government, is the one that has brought this into focus at this time. We have entered into a debate to talk about an agreement between governments in this country. My colleague has spent his time extolling the virtues of a particular free trade agreement, which really does not enter into the basic question being asked, which is why the government reneged on its deal with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador on the arrangement they had made to deal with the problems that were going to come to the fishing industry through this trade deal.Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementFish processing industryFisheries and fishersGovernment compensationNewfoundland and LabradorNewfoundland and Labrador Fisheries Investment FundOpposition motionsGeraldKeddySouth Shore—St. Margaret'sGeraldKeddySouth Shore—St. Margaret's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, this weekend the board of the Native Communications Society of the Northwest Territories meets to decide whether to shut down a northern institution that provides daily Dene language programs through the Northwest Territories.NCS is in this position because of a fight over funding with the Conservative government, which caused their station to lay off most of its staff in July, cut all local programming, and limit broadcasts to preset music. This is jeopardizing radio station CKLB, which has been on the air for 30 years.I have also heard that the Inuvialuit Communications Society came close to shutting down due to funding delays and that the Aboriginal Voices Radio Network has had funding problems as well.The two objectives of Heritage Canada funding for aboriginal radio are to ensure availability of significant amount of radio and television programming and to contribute to the protection and enhancement of aboriginal languages and cultures.Aboriginal media give a voice to Canada's first peoples to tell their stories and preserve their language and cultures. Petty funding delays endanger this vital fabric of Canada. Will the minister get this together immediately?Aboriginal peoplesGovernment assistanceNative Communications Society of the N.W.T.Radio broadcastingStatements by MembersJohnCarmichaelDon Valley WestCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, nutrition north is working so well that average Canadians now are sending food parcels to needy northern families. However, nutrition north is just one of the ways the government's narrow-minded policies have failed northerners. The government's so-called streamlining of environmental protections has led to lawsuits with first nations, which have increased uncertainty for development. Internationally, the government has chosen confrontation over co-operation in the Arctic.When will the government realize that its northern policy is harming us in the north rather than helping?First NationsFood supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programOral questionsMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtection of Canada from Terrorists ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.I am speaking today to Bill C-44, a terrorism bill. However, before I get into the more technical aspects of my speech, I want to talk a bit about the threat of terrorism in Canada. I have heard my colleagues across the way describe the events of last fall as being one of the most egregious terrorism acts that we have seen in Canada, but I do not think it actually deserves that title. The most egregious act of terrorism that occurred in Canada was Air India in 1985. It was a very tragic occurrence. CSIS at the time was tracking the terrorists, and we did not have very good oversight over CSIS and its operations then. For many years, Parliament was unable to get to the bottom of it, and required quite extensive action on the part of government to do that. What we saw in 1985 was a large act of terrorism, in which hundreds of people were killed. That is, in my mind, the primary event of terrorism in Canada in the time I have been here.We have seen other acts of terrorism. We have seen it in the Alberta gas fields, where people have blown up gas wells on numerous occasions. We have seen acts of terrorism on the west coast against hydroelectric facilities. Terrorism has shown up in Canada quite often over the course of our lifetimes. Only today do we see this kind of knee-jerk reaction to incidents for which we have much difficulty understanding as pure terrorism, because the individuals involved had mental and social issues. They may well have been influenced by ideology from one ethnic group or the other, but they were not driven or coerced by that. They acted on their own and in some ways acted haphazardly and in a way that suggested they were simply emotional outbursts. To me, that is not the same type of thing as a carefully planned and executed destruction of an airliner, killing hundreds of people. That is truly a definition of, if not terrorism, the relative degree of importance of the acts that take place. It is unfortunate that in the events we have seen in the last few months, we now will make decisions about the way we run Canada that we did not choose to make in 1985 or at other times when we were faced with acts that we could justifiably call terrorism. Therefore, why are we doing it now? Why are we taking these actions now? What is the larger threat that we see and perceive that will curtail more human rights and the basic freedoms we have in Canada, those that we have worked very hard to maintain? What are we doing?With the latest bill, we would increase the powers of Canada's spy agency. We are offering it up as another international body to engage in espionage and spy on other countries. We have created this situation in the law. Clause 8 of the bill calls for enabling “the Service to investigate, within or outside Canada, a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16”. The important words are “outside Canada“. Now we will give our intelligence service more latitude to pursue its objectives outside of Canada.(1245)Section 21 of the act asks that we also give the agency the ability to act without regard to any other law, in other words, any other law of another country. We are asking our intelligence service to open up the opportunity to spy on other countries, to disregard the laws that other countries might have toward their citizens and pursue our intelligence system in that regard. We are taking a step to a more confrontational approach to other nations based on one single perceived threat of ISIL, or al Qaeda, or those foreign agencies that we see as being the prime international threat to the stability of the world right now.We are on a fairly slippery slope and this is simply the first piece of legislation that the government is coming forward with, and we are going to see some more. We were given public notice of another bill today, and I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, certainly we are moving in that direction. It is something that we have to take very seriously. It is not simple. It is not simply to jump on the bandwagon and let us go after increased surveillance abilities our intelligence service overseas. Within Canada we will see our intelligence service taking other kinds of actions which would not have been permitted in the past.Is the threat of that significance why we need to move in that direction? I would argue that after the larger incident of terrorism that occurred in 1985, we made some changes to our airport security system. We did some things to help reduce that threat. We did not really provide that same coordination within the country that perhaps was required. I think we are all in favour of greater coordination between our protective services. However, at that time, we did not see the need to give our intelligence service these types of powers to take out of the country, yet we have seen incidents far less serious than that which are now driving us in that direction. Why? Is it simply by politics? That is a concern that we all have on this side of the House, that we are moving ahead with restrictions of the rights and privileges of Canadians based on the political necessity of creating this threat in the Canadian political process. It is unfortunate that we would then choose to change our laws, laws that have been in place for a long time. In some ways, politics is important in terms of our international relationships. When we see a Canadian foreign minister abroad being pelted with eggs and shoes, that is an unusual occurrence for Canada. Perhaps we should look at the politics of what we are doing rather than simply looking at ways that we can intervene militarily. We have moved away from a Canadian position of enlightened centralism into one that picks sides. That is the greatest threat to Canadian security in this day and age. C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsCanadian Security Intelligence ServiceGovernment billsNational securityTerrorism and terroristsThird reading and adoptionCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooPaulCalandraOak Ridges—Markham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtection of Canada from Terrorists ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, to put a number on it in that regard is really difficult. However, what I was trying to point out was that after the Air India incident, in which 300 people were killed, we did certain things. Most of them dealt with the physical security of our airports. We tried to better coordinate the agencies engaged in dealing with terrorist incidents within our country. We took some actions there; we did not change the law. We took actions within the services that we provide to Canadians to protect them to ensure that we did manage to maintain the same level of personal liberties and freedoms through that time.Now, we are in a different time and we have had a number of deaths. They were terribly unfortunate and no one wants to see any of this happen, but, of course, it is part of any society that these things do happen. Now, as a result, are we going to make these changes? Now, are we now going to reduce these freedoms? Now, will we send out our intelligence agency to play a larger role in the international community? I do not find that appropriate.C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsGovernment billsNational securityTerrorism and terroristsThird reading and adoptionPaulCalandraOak Ridges—MarkhamPeggyNashParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtection of Canada from Terrorists ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of greater oversight of these bodies by Parliament in a fashion that would provide us with quicker answers than we received in regard to the Air India incident. That showed me how important it is to interact continually with the intelligence agency to understand what it is doing, why it is doing what it is doing, where its shortfalls are, and how the agency can be improved. Without that, I think there is extreme danger to Canadian values because it simply does not give the intelligence agency the opportunity to look carefully at what it is doing and to ensure it is doing things according to every law we have in place now. I think that goes without saying.C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsCanadian Security Intelligence ServiceGovernment billsNational securityTerrorism and terroristsThird reading and adoptionPeggyNashParkdale—High ParkLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the nutrition north program is another failure and symbolic of the Conservatives' failed Arctic policies. Now the minister's department has put out a tender for a consultant to help him out with nutrition north, not now but next fiscal year.The reality is that parents across northern Canada are going without food and elders are scavenging in the dumps.Canadians in southern Canada have begun sending food to northerners through organizations like Helping our Northern Neighbours.Why are the Conservatives delaying action on this immediate crisis?Food supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programOral questionsEdFastHon.AbbotsfordBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for coming here and presenting the government's viewpoint on the bill, which has certainly not come from the front benches of this establishment. That is something that should always be considered when presenting such an important bill. I want to talk a bit about Parks Canada, because having lived next to Wood Buffalo National Park for my entire life, I know very well what has happened with national parks in our country. Under the Liberals' administration, national parks were the whipping boy for program cuts. They have continued that way through this government. In the year 2000, I remember the park superintendent at Wood Buffalo telling me that the park's budget in real dollars was less than it was 20 years before. We are dealing with very large pieces of land that do not have a lot of support in terms of financial resources to do the job that has to be done.In the Nahanni expansion, I asked Jim Prentice, the minister at the time, to give me a letter outlining what he was going to do for this expansion. He said they were going to put $5 million into capital projects for the Simpson and Nahanni Butte region. That was seven years ago. Nothing has been spent yet. I talked to the director the other day in committee. He said they have $3 million put aside, so over seven years the $5 million has turned into $3 million, and nothing has been built. What is the best indicator of future performance? It is past performance. How is the government going to improve on its past performance when it comes to putting infrastructure into our national parks?Budget cutsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionLawrenceToetElmwood—TransconaLawrenceToetElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill S-5. Of course, we support the development of national parks, and as a national party, we are very much in favour of Parks Canada. As an MP from the Northwest Territories, my job in Parliament is to make sure that the people in the Northwest Territories get the deal they agreed to with the Conservative government. That is my job, and if I do not do that, I am not doing my job. Therefore, when the hon. member said that somehow this is linked to the flowery thought of all these national parks and that I am opposed to it, that is not the case at all. My job here is to represent the people of the Northwest Territories and the people of the Sahtu. That is what I am here for, and I know that job.We are pleased, and we hope that the bill will pass later today and that we will all agree to get it done before Christmas, because really, this expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve is a Christmas gift to Canada. It is not necessarily simply from the government; it is from the people of the Sahtu Region. The first nations, the people who have settled their land claims, had the ability to say to the Government of Canada that they were willing to enter into a partnership and create a national park reserve in their territory on the land their ancestors lived on, which is theirs to use. They went ahead with this for the good of Canada and for the good of everyone. I think that is who we should be celebrating here today: the people of the Sahtu Region. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for this national park.I could say the same thing about the Dehcho Region during the first expansion of the Nahanni national park. It would not have happened without the support of the Dehcho people. Now we have a third park in the Northwest Territories that our first nations people are looking to develop and create. That is the Thaidene Nene, which is located on the eastern edge of Great Slave Lake. It is a beautiful area, and these people are working very diligently with Parks Canada, with everyone they can, to promote and develop this sacred area, which they understand will be a world-class national park in the future.Our people in the Northwest Territories are onside with national parks, but we want to make sure that the Conservative government is onside with what it takes to create a national park. It is not just an agreement on the land that will be put in a reserve. It is the understanding that we need to build the infrastructure. We need to make the opportunities for that national park, one of many in the Northwest Territories, to flourish and provide the people of the Sahtu Region with an opportunity to show the beauty of their region, to bring people into Canada, and to offer something that is unique and wonderful in an ever-shrinking world: wilderness that is well preserved and is part of a natural ecosystem. That is what we have with Nááts’ihch’oh park. It is a wonderful opportunity.We are onside with this endeavour. We look forward to the bill going through third reading here today and leaving this place, with the understanding that it can go to the Governor General for final approval. That would be a very good thing to happen. It is not that we agree with everything that has happened with the park. There are people who have said that the boundary should be larger, but that is something the government has made a decision on. That is the role of the government. It chose not to listen to the people. Therefore, the Conservatives are moving forward with this reserve, and we have to accept that. That is fine. We will deal with it. There will be other governments in the future that may make the changes required to completely control the ecosystem in that area and make sure it covers the whole watershed. Those are issues we can deal with later. (1045)The national park reserve sets out an area whose final boundary will be renegotiated. There will be opportunities to deal with that. Therefore, this is not a problem and we can move ahead.I want to switch gears and talk about the Sahtu Region. The Sahtu Region in the Northwest Territories is an amazing area. It has natural resources that have been exploited for many years by Imperial Oil at the Normal Wells oil field. When we think of it, the current government and the Liberal government before it have always refused to allow the royalties, the dollars collected from the Normal Wells oil field, to be returned to the people of the north. The government tells us what is in the devolution agreement. It says it owns part of that oil field and that it is not going to share it. How did it get ownership of it? It traded the rights to take royalties from Imperial Oil for a one-third share of ownership. Therefore, on a deal that was struck between the Liberals and Conservatives—I do not know who struck this deal, but they made a deal—the government collects the money as ownership rather than royalties, and tells the Northwest Territories government that it is not going to get a penny out of it. This has been going on for 40 years.When we talk about putting a little money into a national park in the Sahtu Region, that is after the government has fleeced the people of the Northwest Territories, taking all the money out of their pockets from the oil field. That is what the Conservatives did. They cannot deny it; that is the history. With the Liberals and Conservatives, it is the same old story. It is really an unfortunate aspect of the development of the Northwest Territories that this resource is not considered part of any devolution agreement and has been taken out of the equation.What happens in the Sahtu Region? There is limited infrastructure development, there is a high cost of living, people have less than adequate community resources. That is the situation in the Sahtu Region. No wonder people are looking to a national park for an opportunity to improve their lot in life.There was some talk in the last couple of years about fracking oil. Shell went in and other companies were fracking oil there. That is fine. At $60 a barrel now, that is over. It is finished. It is not going to happen. Nothing like that is going to happen in the Sahtu Region for a long time. We have an opportunity now to develop other resources, most of which have been identified as tourism. Local people can be involved in this and we can see some sort of economy creeping in on that basis.It is a sad fact of northern development that these kinds of arrangements are made. Governments take and do not return. Resource development in every other region of the country is used to develop the region. Royalties are used to improve the situation so that the region can develop. In this case in the Sahtu, those monies have amounted to about $120 million to $150 million a year over many years. That might be reduced a bit now with the price of oil going down, but those are the kinds of dollars we are talking about that have been kept out of the Sahtu Region.The government has not reinvested. It says it owns this resource, but does it put the money back into the region to make sure that it is good? Any normal public government with the right and responsibility to collect money from a region generally puts something back into the region. I am glad that the government has agreed with the Sahtu people to create the national park, but it might explain why my concern lies more with the promises that are made about the development of the park and the investment that the government is willing to make in national parks in the Northwest Territories.In the case of the Nahanni expansion, the dollars were actually cut back. There were some seven years in which infrastructure was not developed, and then the dollars intended for infrastructure are cut by 50%. (1050)How does that work? Did you not think about inflation? Does inflation not come into developing infrastructure? Do you not—Dehcho First NationsGovernment billsHydraulic fracturingNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesOil and gasPublic consultationS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionTourismLawrenceToetElmwood—TransconaJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I was talking about the Liberals and Conservatives together, and perhaps when I said “you”, the Conservatives did not realize that I was lumping them in with the Liberals for their refusal to deal with the north respectfully when it comes to this particular aspect of northern development in the Normal Wells oil field. The Conservatives have stuck with the Liberal line. Regarding the “you” that I was referring to, I apologize for any confusion I might have caused my Conservative colleagues this close to Christmas, because I know they are probably thinking about mistletoe and Christmas pudding and all the rest of that. I am really happy for them because it is a good time of year and I am sure we will all enjoy ourselves at Christmas.However, I want to go back to tourism because with oil at $60 a barrel in this country, we are going to have to do something other than resource development. Sixty-dollar oil is not going to make this country run properly. Let us talk about tourism and what the government has done for tourism over the last years since the Conservatives have been in power.With regard to tourism, the marketing investment made by various nations in tourism in 2011 was as follows: Ireland, $211 million, a 14% increase; Mexico, $153 million, a 4% increase; Australia, another resource-developing nation, $147 million, or a 30% increase; France, a similar increase, Canada—we should be up there—$72 million, a 10% decrease in our marketing effort by the current government. Every other country in the world has taken tourism seriously. What is wrong with the Conservatives? Do they not understand that bringing people into this country helps our balance of trade, that it creates jobs and opportunity for real people? Whether it someone working in a gift shop in Victoria or paddling a canoe for a visitor in the Sahtu Region, or whatever people are doing, they need the support of the federal government. We need to sell Canada. We need to sell these beautiful national parks that we have created. We need to put that on the table. Yes, perhaps some national parks have seen increases in their tourism, and we could pick out a few of the smaller ones and say that is great. Yes, national parks are going to be a selling point for Canada, but we have to sell them. We have to invest in them. We have to make the marketing decisions that will improve the opportunities for tourism to increase so that we can actually benefit from them. Perhaps we should simply invest in oil, which jumps from $147 a barrel down to $60, back up to $100, and now down to this. How is this going to work for Canada? It is not sustainable. This type of activity cannot be the main stem of our economy. We need to go back to the basics of how we make a living in this country. We cannot be living high off resource development when prices are so fragile. Some days resources are going to make a lot of money for people and those people will put more money into housing, causing the price of housing in Calgary to rise to a point where sooner or later it will fall and hurt everyone. However, what happens when interest rates go up and all those young people who have resource-development jobs paying them $180,000 a year and have bought expensive houses no longer have those jobs anymore? We are going to see the same situation that occurred in the 1980s.Why should we be so focused on resource development? Why not invest in things that we can control? Tourism is a great opportunity. Let us think about it over Christmas. As people are eating their plum pudding, as they are enjoying the love and affection of their family, which I am sure all of us are going to do and look forward to so much, let us think about tourism. We should think about the opportunities that exist for this country to share what we have. We should think about the beauty of the Sahtu Region and about the incredible nature of the Nahanni National Park.(1055)I remember Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, and I went down the Nahanni River in the summer of 2007. We wanted to promote the expansion of the park. What an incredible area Nahanni National Park is. One of the reasons it is so incredible, and I do not think many people in this country realize, is that it is an area that was never glaciated. When we go down the canyons of the Nahanni for 200 kilometres, the rocks we see up on either side, a thousand feet into the air, are the rocks that were there a hundred million years ago. The patterns of change that have occurred over those years through erosion have created the most magnificent spectacle one could imagine.What a treasure is Nahanni National Park. What an opportunity—Hon. John Baird: The Prime Minister quadrupled the size of it.Mr. Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, then he reduced the budget.We have seen that we have quadrupled the size of the parks and we have reduced the budget. How does that work? Why not invest in these parks? Why not think that these parks are the real opportunity for growth and tourism in this country? We cannot simply look on them as the whipping boys for cutting the budget for the government. That should not be the case. National parks should be that sacred trust in which we put forward that opportunity to expand, to look at the wonderful wilderness we have. In a world of nine billion people, wilderness is one of the most valuable commodities there is. Going forward, we know that people will want to come and visit the parks. We know they will want to experience what we have here. Let us invest in that. Let us make that happen.When my hon. colleague accused me of not liking national parks, that was absolutely ludicrous. I love the wilderness. I love what we are doing with the size and shape of our national parks, but we absolutely need to make sure that investment goes in, so that the people of the regions I represent will benefit. The Northwest Territories has given up more land for national parks than any other part of this country in the last 10 years. Let us see the investment go in to make that a reality for us.Mr. Speaker, you have done an incredible job of keeping me in line. Thank you. I will stop my discourse there, because I can see I will not get much more applause from the other side, so I think this is a good time to quit.Budget cutsGovernment billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNahanni National Park Reserve of CanadaNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionTourismJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, the words I did not hear from the minister were the words of the first nations of the Sahtu Region, the Dehcho people, the people of Lutsel K'e, who are the ones who actually make the parks happen. Without their support, this would not be here. That is why I said this is a Christmas gift from the first nations of my region. The Sahtu have said they are willing to give up their traditional land to make a reserve that they will share with the rest of the people for eternity.I thank the government for listening. That is very good.Government billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—NepeanGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, Stephen Kakfwi, the premier of the Northwest Territories from 2000 to 2004 was an excellent leader. He was a visionary in the Northwest Territories and has my total respect. I understand where he is coming from on this. We have talked about the issue of the size and shape of the park. Where we have to go with this is that, as this is a national park reserve, in the future the national park will be established. If there is a government with a will to include more of the area within that national park, that is something that could be accomplished and something we could look forward to. Right now what is happening is a step that is supported by the people in the Sahtu Region. They are willing to accept what the government is offering to do. They are partners in it. I think we can support this going forward in good fashion for those reasons. Nothing is perfect in this world, but as we go along in life we can make things better.Government billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is absolutely correct, except the emphasis should be on the work that the Sahtu people did in getting a land claims agreement in place and in developing the whole idea of respect for their rights to the land. What we see coming out of that is that the plans other people have can come to fruition. It is an object lesson about getting land claims settled and putting first nations in a position of empowerment over their land. Then we can see good results coming from that.What we are seeing in this country right now is the exact opposite of that, with all of these court cases over resource development. We see that governments and industry are not paying attention to the custodians, the owners of the land in many cases, who are the first nations people. When they do, good things happen.Aboriginal land claimsGovernment billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is a complex issue that the member is asking me to address right now, and that would be difficult in the 45 seconds I have.My thoughts are full of mistletoe and Christmas pudding, as well. In this moment, I cannot say that I can offer that to the member. To me, it speaks volumes about the difference in values. When first nations people have the opportunity to respect the land and to preserve the land, they will pick up on it. In Ontario, in urban areas, my goodness, those values are much more difficult to put in place. That is something people in Ontario can learn from first nations in the Northwest Territories.Government billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesRouge Valley National Near-Urban ParkS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Senate billsThird reading and adoptionColinCarrieOshawaJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2010, Eddie Snowshoe of Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories, committed suicide in the Edmonton Institution's segregation unit. His mother still grieves. Though he had been diagnosed with mental health issues and as suicidal, he was in solitary confinement for 162 days straight.The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that solitary confinement is contrary to one of the essential aims of the penitentiary system.How many more Eddie Snowshoe's will there be? How many more deaths will it take before this minister takes some action?Correctional facilitiesMental healthOral questionsSnowshoe, Edward ChristopherSolitary confinementAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—Bellechasse//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too was troubled by the article in The Globe and Mail about Edward Snowshoe. In many ways we could look at putting mentally ill people in solitary confinement as torture, and by doing so we are engaging in an act that is reprehensible and should not be part of a civilized society. What does my colleague think about that?C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseGovernment billsMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementMurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Impaired Driving]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present these petitions from Canadian citizens dealing with the issue of impaired driving. The current impaired driving laws are too lenient and in the interest of public safety, these citizens are looking for more action from the government.Criminal CodeImpaired drivingMandatory sentencingPetition 412-4659Petition 412-4660Vehicular homicideAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his presentation today on this bill, a bill that really has two parts. One part went through an extensive consultation period. The record of that consultation over five years and the resulting recommendations are not really in the public to the degree they should be.The second part, as the minister has outlined, for the Yukon side of the bill, had a number of amendments put forward. The minister indicated that there was consultation on these particular amendments, which are the controversial parts of this bill for Yukoners, to a great degree.What the Yukon first nations are saying is that on February 26, 2014, Canada arrived at a meeting and provided only paper copies of these amendments to the people at the meeting. The first nations who were on the phone could not have electronic copies. To look at this and say that there was consultation on these very vital parts of the bill is not correct.Could the minister show how this is adequate consultation on these major changes to the bill?Download responsibilityFirst NationsGovernment billsLand managementPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, to that point, this is what the Yukon First Nations said, and they were speaking to the clause in the agreement: Although the reference to the clause is accurate, and the Final Agreement shall prevail in any inconsistency or conflict, the only way to resolve this when it arises would be to take the matter to the courts. I would like the minister to comment, because we are ending up with another bill that will end up in the courts to deal with inconsistencies between the treaty and the agreements that have been signed and what the Conservative government wants to pass into law. Why is the government moving in that direction? Why does it not recognize the nature of the issue it is dealing with and put forward legislation that will not be challenged in court?Download responsibilityFirst NationsGovernment billsLand managementLegal proceedingsS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill in front of us, which has found its way here through the Senate, a completely inappropriate way to bring forward legislation. It should have come here first and should be a government bill, but the government chose that pathway. That way it can move things through the House in a fashion and build a case using its witnesses in the Senate, which it controls, and take away the real responsibility for debate in this place.This bill deals with northerners' rights and first nations' rights. First nations' rights are constitutionally protected, and northerners' rights have constitutional issues attached to them as well, which I will go into as I go forward. Bill S-6 would amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, known as YESAA, and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. I will deal mostly with the changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act. The changes to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act are much less profound and not as controversial. There is a high level of opposition to these changes. In September, I was in Whitehorse and conducted a public hearing on these bills, with the assistance of the Yukon NDP. There was standing room only in that meeting room. People wanted to understand the bills and were concerned about their impact. Yukoners are sophisticated in their knowledge and understanding of legislative changes. They have been through it to a greater extent than perhaps the other territories. It is a territory that has achieved the highest level of devolution prior to this bill. People are on track in understanding what their rights are and what they see as their future.However, of course, the Conservative MP, the Conservative senator, and the right-wing Yukon Party government are not listening to the people, not conducting public hearings, and not allowing the people of Yukon to have a say on this bill. They are doing their stakeholder consultation and fulfilling their obligations to first nations for consultations, but where are the public hearings? Where is the engagement of the public at large? They will not do that because they know very well that if they did, the real opposition to this bill would coalesce with the first nations and say no to the bill and the changes.Why would people in Yukon who are concerned about their livelihoods and futures be concerned about these changes that the minister has presented as simply ways of increasing economic activity in Yukon and making things work a little better? There are four changes that really upset Yukoners. One of them is providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. This is something that was established in the NWT and there were real concerns with it there. The Yukon, which has been dealing with a different system for the past 10 years, is looking at anything like this as an abrogation of its rights and hard-fought authority over the lands and resources.The second change is the introduction of legislative time limits for assessments. That is another issue that I will bring up a bit later. The third change is allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all responsibilities to the Yukon government. That is an issue of huge concern to first nations, and Yukoners as well. Yukon has worked out an arrangement between first nations and public government that is critical to the future of the Yukon territory. I do not think anyone would deny that. That relationship is one that the provinces are having more and more trouble with every day. The failure to deal on a nation-to-nation basis at the provincial level is causing all kinds of grief in all kinds of projects right across this country. Therefore, there is concern about how the delegation takes place. (1235)Then there is the question of creating broad exemptions from YESAA for renewals and amendments of permits and authorizations. People look at that and ask what is going on and wonder how they we make sure it is correct.Additionally, these amendments favour the Yukon government over Yukon first nations, the other partner in the YESAA process. The Council of Yukon First Nations has threatened legal action should the bill become law. YESAA was established in 2003 in fulfilment of an obligation in the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, which has settled many first nations land claims in that territory. In October, 2007, the five-year review of YESAA was initiated and then completed in 2012. The findings of the review were never made public.Unlike the provinces, the legislative powers of the territories are determined through federal statute rather than through the Constitution. What we have in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut is what Parliament gives us. While section 3 of the charter of rights, which is part of the Constitution, guarantees that every citizen in Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein, the remainder of the Constitution describes the territories as lesser partners in Canada than the provinces. We in the three territories have a problem in that we would remain without the authority of this body, the House of Commons, giving us our full due under Confederation. We would not have those powers under the Constitution. Because of this reliance on the federal government to devolve the legislative powers and authorities that the provinces take for granted, it is really unfortunate and duplicitous that the Conservatives are taking away powers through these amendments to the act 11 years after they were granted. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Dennis Bevington: Some might find it amusing that there are noises in the House, Mr. Speaker, but that is something we all have to live with. The rumbling of discontent in the country toward the Conservative government far exceeds any noise I have heard here in the House. Yukoners are also angry about the lack of public involvement as Bill S-6 was developed. As I said, I held a public meeting in September. It was a full house. There was another public meeting held later on in the fall in the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre, where there was standing room only. A few hundred people showed up. Why would people come out to a very dry discussion of environmental assessment? It is because they care. They understand and care about how their laws are being developed. If we went into the province of Alberta and said that we were going to change its laws about environment assessment, that this is the way things are going to go from now on, would the people of Alberta not come out and protest? If we did that in Quebec what would happen? Why are we treated in this cavalier fashion where the federal government can come into a territory, hold hearings with stakeholders only, take the opinion of the people it considers important and not have any public meetings with the people of the territory about what is going on in their own territory?When the original YESAA was developed, the department released drafts of the legislation in 1998 and 2001 for public review. It also undertook two separate tours of Yukon to meet with Yukon first nations and other residents to review and discuss these drafts. A little different pattern emerges here. Back then, one of the discussion tours lasted for 90 days and went to every community throughout Yukon. Every first nations community not only had an opportunity to send in written submissions on the first draft, but each community also had an opportunity to have an open public hearing. The way that Bill S-6 has been developed is so different. Listening to the Conservatives one would think this has been a multi-year program with incredible input. The reality is much different. (1240)The parties discussed the YESAA process for many hours between 2008 and 2011 as part of the YESAA five-year review. That review is required under the Umbrella Final Agreement, and not a discussion of a new draft bill.The amendments to YESAA under Bill S-6 that are of concern were never discussed and never raised by the Conservatives during the five-year review. These new amendments were introduced with little opportunity to ensure there was adequate consultation and accommodation.On February 26, 2014, as I said earlier to the minister, Canada arrived at a meeting with Yukon first nations and provided paper copies to those in attendance and would not even give electronic copies to those participating by telephone, despite the changes to first nations' relationship with the crown and the Yukon territorial government. We had meeting where they could not even be there in person and they could not even have copies of the amendments.What is going on there? They had less than two months to respond to these changes. This was hardly adequate.Consultation means providing the necessary information to the parties, which the Conservatives did not do. They failed to meet the test of the treaty and common-law duty to consult and accommodate, so there was inadequate consultation with first nations, despite it being required by law. Democracy also requires the participation of the public. On that score, the Conservatives and their elected representatives did very little, and perhaps even nothing.When I conducted a public hearing there, knowing that as critic I would be responsible for speaking on behalf of Yukoners here in the House, I met with many of the public afterward and the chiefs of the grand council. What did I hear? They questioned the constitutionality of the unilateral changes proposed in Bill S-6, which were not discussed during the five-year review or during the McCrank report. The government has had plenty of opportunities to discuss changes like these, but did not take those opportunities.They say that the 16-month timeline is out of touch with the reality on the ground, particularly further north where, depending upon the timing of the review, the project may have only one summer to conduct any necessary environmental work.When it comes to the timelines, Yukoners, who live there and understand the place, say there are problems with the 16-month timeline, that it may not give them adequate time to provide the information to the board so that the project can be assessed properly.Also, Yukoners fear that the first nations do not have the financial and person resources to adequately assess proposals and that a timeline like this would artificially strain the few resources they have. This is a common problem across the north, when it comes to environmental assessment.Companies have adequate resources generally. They do not go into the process unless they do have those resources. Many times large multinational corporations can bring more to bear on the subject than a first nation community that might be the most affected by it.Yukoners see these amendments as an attack on Yukoners' democratic rights and the constitutional rights of first nations. By ignoring first nations' rights, the bill would create uncertainty in the mining sector, as first nations would now resort to the courts to protect their interests.We had a system in place that was working. There were some changes required. Those changes were discussed. There were 70 amendments to the act proposed, many of which could have been done in House. People agreed to them, according to the reports that we have heard of, although those reports were not made fully public. Instead, the Conservatives brought in these other measures that would have the ability to upset the operation of Yukon in the years to come, just as in the Northwest Territories they changed the environmental assessment legislation with devolution. We have two first nations now taking them to court over that.(1245)Where is the certainty in the process? Where is the certainty to mining companies? They want to go ahead and do this kind of work, but they are not sure that everyone has come onside and they do not know whether they will end up in a situation where what they propose is in front of the courts?“Social licence” is a phrase that members of the government need to understand. It should be branded on all their documents. They need social licence to move ahead these days. They cannot simply be the way they have been; that is not working. We can look at all the pipelines and all the proposed energy projects across the country, and we see that social licence has caused grief in almost every case.We had a system in Yukon that was working. It needed some minor tweaking. What we have ended up with is a series of changes that take it far beyond the pale. However, I have heard other voices in Yukon speaking against this bill. The proposed amendments in front of the Senate today were not discussed in the five-year process with Canada and the Yukon government. This is the testimony of Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations, before the Senate Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. She said:—it is our view that the YESAA has been operating effectively and efficiently since its enactment in 2003. The federal government now wants to unilaterally make additional amendments to the YESAA. We did not request these amendments, nor do support them. These amendments are not necessary.This is the testimony of Mary Jane Jim, Councillor, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, in front of that same committee. She said:Eleven years ago, devolution gave the Yukon government province-like powers for land and resource management. This was an important step in Yukon’s history and crucial in Yukon’s ability to determine our own future, a future grounded in respectful relationships among Yukon First Nation governments and the Yukon government. Yukon NDP leader, Liz Hanson, in the Yukon legislature, on October 23, said, “With these proposed amendments to what is a made-in-Yukon environmental assessment process, YESAA, it’s no longer ours.”A Yukon News editorial, “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”, on June 13, said:A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are [the Yukon senator and the MP for the Yukon] who are supposed to ensure that the interests of Yukoners are represented in Ottawa. Instead, they’ve kept the public out of the loop, other than [MP] uttering vague generalities about the forthcoming changes without offering any meaningful specifics. Shame on them. Here is the final one, and I know the Conservatives do not like to hear the real people talking. The Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, in a November 21 letter to the Yukon MP., said:We believe that these changes will have a negative impact on the tourism industry, and for Yukoners overall.As YESAA is one of the cornerstones of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, we are concerned with the Council of Yukon First Nations’ grievance with the lack of consultation regarding these proposed changes. Moreover, there was no opportunity for the Yukon public and the majority of stakeholders to provide their views through a transparent consultation process.The members of the House are here to represent the people of their constituencies. The people of Yukon do not want this bill. They do not see the need for it. They do not understand why the federal government is taking things away from them that were well established in Yukon, that do not need to be changed. Why is this paternalistic attitude being foisted upon the people of Yukon? Democracy is about serving the will of the people. If the Conservatives really cared about what is important for Yukon, they would listen very carefully to Yukoners. They are in an embryonic stage, creating their own society, their own way of life, their own relationships with first nations. This is what they are doing. If the Conservative people want to participate there, then they should go to Yukon and join with them there as citizens of Yukon.The citizens of Yukon and the first nations people in Yukon should have the absolute right to a final say about how their land is being managed. We have listened to the people of Yukon. We are ready to work to fight this bill.Download responsibilityEnvironmental assessmentFirst NationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsLand managementLegal proceedingsNorthern CanadaNunavut TerritoryPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsTourismYukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActYukon TerritoryBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, on the point of why the committees are not travelling, I can refer back to the Conservative government and its House leader, who is flat out against any of the changes we want to see at committee. Why are the Conservatives continually blocking all amendments at committee? Why are they not listening to people? That is one of the main reasons why the House is falling into disrepute.We all trust that in the future, we will build to provide the proper consultation with the Yukon people that they well deserve on this bill. That is unlike the Conservative government, its MP and senator, who have refused to do that in Yukon already. Committee travelDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsStanding Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentYukon TerritoryRyanLeefYukonYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, the relationship between aboriginal governments in Canada and the federal government is one that is now approaching litigation at almost every point. It is also one where we see confrontations on the street. We see groups standing up for their rights in the public eye, trying to work out relationships with other groups in society that understand their rights are very important. First nations have the right to a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. That is what the treaties gave them. That is the basis of the relationship of Canadians with first nations.What we are seeing now is this playing of games and small movements by the government in these cases in the north. On the one hand, the government offered us devolution in the Northwest Territories. On the other hand, it took back things from the first nations. It caused a lot of stress within our society in the Northwest Territories. It created a situation where our territorial government, in order to achieve something, had to go back on its word with the first nations about supporting something else.The same thing is probably going on in Yukon. The Yukon territorial government understands that there is a relationship there, but it is being forced into taking a position like this, which will actually harm its society in the long run.I really hope we can work around this, but this is a problem that has been created by the federal government and it is intransigent on these issues.Download responsibilityFirst NationsGovernment billsLand managementPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsYvonneJonesLabradorÉlaineMichaudPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, true democracy demands a public process. Everything should be public. That is the nature of it, especially when we deal with the development of our territories.People who live in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut do not have the same rights as other Canadians. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with our rights, our development and our opportunities, it should be one of the most public discussions that take place.I think I showed in my speech how the previous governments actually understood that. It is the Conservative government that has not done this. I would ask the Conservative-elected MP why he has not conducted public meetings there.Government policy needs to be put in front of the people. It needs the support of the people. The government needs to understand where they are coming from, as well. By neglecting that, it is neglecting part of the responsibility we have as legislators and as representatives of our constituency. We absolutely have to engage in public process.Download responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthern CanadaPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsÉlaineMichaudPortneuf—Jacques-CartierMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record.To this day the government has not had any public hearings in Yukon on this proposed bill. The MP for Yukon has not held any public hearings on the proposed bill. The bill is now in front of us in Parliament. It has been moved through the Senate. We still have not seen the government do any public process in Yukon.At this point, the government is saying that a particular procedural issue within the House, of which we have many, needs to be solved. I agree, it should be solved by good will on both sides to get this process back to where it was. However, where is the government with its commitment to public process? Where is it on holding public meetings in Yukon. The government is absolutely nowhere.Committee travelDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate billsStanding Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersYukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her presentation on this bill. Coming from a northern region, I know that she has the same concerns about protecting the people and the land from changes that they do not want, and allowing the people in the north to make valid decisions about how changes should happen. This is what is at stake here.We are talking about a public process here. We look at the past record, where the government took the time to meet and engage with communities right across Yukon on the original bill. It had public hearings on these original bills, prior to the bill going before the House of Commons. This is the relationship that we have now. The bill has gone through the Senate. The government has hardened its position on the bill that has been created. Now the government thinks that by going and giving people in Yukon Territory five minutes to speak to the bill, one after another in committee, and maybe giving them an hour or two for debate on it, that it is somehow going to replace the process that the government should have gone through years ago.What does my hon. colleague think about this process, which is already flawed?Download responsibilityGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsLand managementPublic consultationS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActSecond readingSenate and senatorsSenate billsYvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersNothern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the people of Rankin Inlet do not need to deal with a lawsuit by their own member of Parliament, but that is what counts as representation from a Conservative member of Parliament. The Minister of the Environment's first response, when she heard about people eating out of the dump, was not to provide help. We heard her first response, which was to repeatedly shout in the House that the story was not true. The Auditor General's review of Nutrition North showed that the program was not based on the needs of every community. There are 50 needy communities that get nothing from the program.The Conservatives keep claiming that food prices are going down. The Auditor General says those numbers cannot be verified because “...the Department did not systematically verify the accuracy of prices reported.”It is time to end the charade. It is time for the hon. member for Nunavut to do something other than sue her constituents. Canadians deserve better.CostsFood supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programStatements by MembersGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryJacquesGourdeLotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the minister to come to Lutsel K’e or Fort Good Hope in my riding and repeat what he just said here. Anyone trying to feed their families in remote communities will say that Nutrition North is not meeting their needs. Why has the minister ignored them for so long? Why did the NDP have to get the Auditor General to publicly embarrass him before he would agree to act?8560-412-64-03 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons (Fall 2014)Families and childrenGovernment assistanceNutrition North Canada programOral questionsRemote communitiesBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNothern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, in June 2013, six NDP MPs called upon the Auditor General to audit the Nutrition North program. He did and found a program in deep trouble, underfunded, improperly assessed, out of control. He found that aboriginal affairs could not tell if the program was really bringing down the cost of food in Canada's north. He also indicated that the program was unfairly distributed to many families and many communities.Could the minister defend, in any way, the lack of management of this vital program for northerners?Northern CanadaNutritionNutrition North Canada programOral questionsStephenHarperRight Hon.Calgary SouthwestBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtection of Canada from Terrorists Act [Bill C-44—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, of course on this side of the House we are concerned about the protection of Canadians, but this is an ongoing thing. The greatest terrorist act committed in this country was Air India, decades ago. We have not seen an incident like that since. We need to look with a great deal of scrutiny at the types of powers that we are giving to the state. The symbol of Canada, really, I think to most people, is the rights of Canadians. That is the real symbol to Canadians. That is what Canadians hold most dear.The debate that we are having today and that we should be having on any increased security is a matter of principle. That is what we talk about at second reading of bills in the House of Commons. We talk about the principles that we are acting on in this country. We speak about the reasons we do things. This is important. This brings out the debate for Canadians. Canadians have a right to hear the debate about security and the nature of security as it impacts on our rights as Canadians. They absolutely have a right to that debate, and we should have that debate today, because, of course, the subject is very topical with the incidents that have occurred in Parliament.Why would we close this debate off when it is such an interesting and important one for Canadians? Why would we want to send the bill to committee immediately when we are are talking about the principles involved in the relationship between security and human rights? Why would we want to foreclose that debate? Why would Canadians not want to hear us talk about this in their House of Commons?C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsGovernment billsMotionsNational securitySecond readingTime allocationStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—BellechasseStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—Bellechasse//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP agree with most of what is in this bill. We look forward to getting it to committee to make some amendments. One of the things we are most concerned about is the oversight of CSIS activities. My colleague talked about the evolution of the threat of terrorism; in fact, the largest terrorist occurrence in Canada was some 20 to 25 years ago, the Air India incident. That was a major terrorist attack on Canadians in Canada.We have dealt with terrorism in the past. We have done certain things, and if we look at the record of CSIS during that time, we would think that civilian oversight would have served Canada well in determining how that particular large and tragic incident occurred and how things transpired between the agencies that dealt with it. Civilian oversight by Canadians would have made a difference in how we viewed that event and how we moved on from it. Would my colleague not agree?C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other ActsCanadian Security Intelligence ServiceGovernment billsNational securityOversight mechanismSecond readingTerrorism and terroristsRyanLeefYukonRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, sometimes the actions of the government are so single-minded that people resort to writing books like Party of One. When it comes to northern policy, this really applies.Last winter, the government wanted to devolve authority over lands and the environment to the Northwest Territories and to make it simpler for developers by doing away with the regional board structures that were negotiated with land claims, against the voices of 90% of northerners, particularly first nations. Now two first nations governments have taken it to court over the change, just as they said they would.Where is the certainty for development with this kind of action? Now it wants to do the same thing in Yukon through Bill S-6. The Council of Yukon First Nations has already said that if this bill passes, it is going to court. What is wrong with the government? What is it that makes it so single-minded that it creates these conflicts? Could it be the Prime Minister, the party of one, in all his glory, who listens to only one voice, his own?Download responsibilityFirst NationsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesS-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActStatements by MembersYukon TerritoryTedOpitzEtobicoke CentreJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the deadline for the Indian residential school personal credit for educational programs and services is tomorrow, yet out of around 80,000 former survivors who are eligible, only 10,000 have applied. This is pushing leaders like Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus to ask the government for an extension of the deadline. Will the minister heed this call? Will he work with other signatories to the agreement and get the deadline extended so that more survivors can access compensation for these large sums of money that are owed to first nations peoples?Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal residential schoolsCompensationGovernment assistanceOral questionsLisaRaittHon.HaltonBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that South Korea has now put in place a carbon trading practice. It is very progressive in dealing with climate change. Now we have a situation where a Canadian government that is so lax on its international agreements on climate change has been put in almost last place among developed countries dealing with climate change. The Prime Minister is vilified as a climate change villain by organizations around the world.Does the member think that circumstances will arise in the next few years where South Korea may take action against Canadian laws and companies that may want to invest in the country because they do not follow the same level of environmental standards that South Korea has?C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of KoreaCanada-Korea free trade agreementCarbon creditsClimate change and global warmingFree tradeSouth KoreaJohnRaffertyThunder Bay—Rainy RiverJohnRaffertyThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something in his presentation that is kind of a half truth, which is that our per capita emissions are the lowest they have ever been. That is not how the world measures and has agreed to measure emissions of CO2. Rather, it is by the actual amount of CO2 emissions. My colleague would have to agree that since 1990 those have gone up and to try to change the statistics by using different formulas to present a case is disingenuous.We put forward a motion to prohibit the weakening of environmental standards to encourage investment. If my colleague is so concerned about the environment, why would his government and the Conservative Party vote against this amendment, which was designed to ensure that nothing would change our ability and our desire to improve environmental standards in both countries? Why would the Conservatives reject this amendment? Was it rejected because they foresee that there may be times in the future when investment will ask for lower environmental standards?C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of KoreaCanada-Korea free trade agreementCarbon dioxideFree tradeGreenhouse gasesSouth KoreaHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the latest omnibus budget bill combines the Polar Commission with the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, creating a new bureaucracy with a weaker reporting relationship with Parliament. Meanwhile there are numerous federal government Canadian Arctic science programs, such as the Polar continental shelf program at Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Ice Service, and the NRC Arctic program.Climate change is a crisis in the Arctic. Why has the Conservative government not created an organization that provides complete overall coordination of Arctic science, one that reports yearly to this Parliament?ArcticC-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measuresCanadian High Arctic Research StationCanadian Polar CommissionMergers and acquisitionsNorthern CanadaOmnibus billsOral questionsScientific research and scientistsJoeOliverHon.Eglinton—LawrenceLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories has experienced the worst forest fire season in memory, destroying 3.5 million hectares of boreal forest. In comparison, the average area of burn per year in all of Canada over the last 10 years was 2 million hectares. Northerners know that this disaster is directly related to climate change. Will the Conservatives finally admit the reality of climate change and take action? Will the government be helping the people of the Northwest Territories deal with the overwhelming costs of this year's forest fire season?Brush, prairie and forest firesClimate change and global warmingGovernment compensationNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsK. KellieLeitchHon.Simcoe—GreyColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his presentation on the Nááts’ihch’oh new park reserve in the Northwest Territories.I have stood here on a number of occasions talking about the Conservatives' plans for parks expansions. I think of the Nahanni park expansion in 2007, which we supported after having written confirmation from the minister at the time, Mr. Prentice, that there would be investments made into the communities and into capital to promote the park and provide visitor centres and things that would provide an impetus to tourism and the development of our communities. Seven years have passed, and nothing in those promises has been built in the Dehcho region, in Fort Simpson, or in Nahanni Butte. Therefore, as we go forward with another national park reserve, of course my question for the parliamentary secretary is this: that guarantees does he have that we are not going to wait another seven years to see a proper visitor centre and the facilities required to operate a park and make it a valuable economic opportunity for the people of the Sahtu region? What kind of guarantees and programs have been established within the department to ensure that this work goes ahead in a timely fashion?Government billsInfrastructureNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-5, which is a bill to create Nááts’ihch’oh national park in the Sahtu Region of the Northwest Territories. This region is centred around the Mackenzie River and stretches towards the Yukon boundary with an incredibly beautiful mountain range and the magnificent wilderness that is the Northwest Territories.I represent people who, when polled, have some of the highest regard for the environment among all the people in Canada. We really have that respect, and respect for the idea of national parks is strong in the Northwest Territories. We have seen the creation of many national parks over many years throughout our territory and we understand the inherent issues that surround the development of national parks. Our first nations people have experience in dealing with park bureaucracies and understand how national parks and their rules and regulations sometimes intervene in their traditional lifestyle. The Sahtu Dene have agreed to this park and to a comprehensive and co-operative management system that goes along with it. We look forward to seeing more details of that in committee so that we can understand how their interests will be protected going forward.I am very pleased to see this beautiful area protected; however, I am not happy that the Conservatives chose the smallest size possible for the park. Through the process of developing this park, there were three options that were set out for the park. Option one was a total area of 6,450 square kilometres. It was developed to best protect conservation values while providing an open area around the existing mineral interests.Option two was a total area of 5,770 square kilometres, which diminished the achievement of conservation goals and allowed more mineral potential to be available.Option three, and this is the one chosen by the Conservatives, was the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres. It took advantage of the mineral potential within the proposed park reserve while providing some protection to key values.The Conservatives made this choice despite option one, the option of 6,450 square kilometres, getting the overwhelming support, at 92.3%, of those who indicated a preference during public consultations on the proposed park. The people of the north said that they were fine with the park, but they wanted to make sure that the park works for the resources and values that are being included within it. This has not been done completely with this park. That is not surprising, because many on that side of the House see national parks as a waste of land and resources. For example, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham has publicly stated that Parks Canada staff are not the best stewards of Canada's land. When a national park was proposed for part of his riding, he responded, “We're going to have to do whatever we can to prevent it.” He quickly changed his tune, however, when his bosses here in Ottawa told him that he should be in favour of the Rouge national urban park. It is a small park, but it is a park that absolutely has value for urban residents of Canada. The belief that parks are a waste of land and resources is just plain wrong. National parks create long-term sustainable jobs and they create opportunities in tourism and support industries. These jobs and economic opportunities last forever, unlike those in the resource sector. Extraction only lasts a few years, and we are very familiar with that. Sometimes they leave a legacy of destruction that lasts for eternity, as was the case with the Giant Mine, so we have to be very careful with how we deal with land. We know that in the Northwest Territories. We understand what goes on with development and we understand why we have to preserve land and why it is important that land be put aside.(1530)Recently I had the opportunity to travel to Yukon to Kluane National Park and Reserve. Yukon's Parks Canada is worked with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations to create a visitor centre at the Da Ku Cultural Centre in Haines Junction. This centre and the numerous businesses in Haines Junction all exist because of Kluane National Park and Reserve. Like other national parks, Kluane has created jobs and economic opportunities that are long lasting and environmentally sound. However, many times it seems to me that to the Conservatives, tourism jobs and economic opportunities that surround that type of activity are of little value because it puts money not in the hands of big corporations, but in the hands of little people, local people, workers and those who want to see a future for the preservation of our natural beauty and such like. Is this the reason why the Conservatives chose the smallest size possible for the park against the recommendations of all the people who chose to make those recommendations in the public consultations?I want to talk about the tourism industry, because it is what really will give the economic opportunities to the Sahtu region by putting aside 4,850 square kilometres of land. Tourism opportunities provide great potentials for our future. They provide local jobs and local businesses, as with Kluane, and Kluane has been done in a very good fashion. It took years to get there. It took many difficult negotiations with first nations so they would achieve benefits, but now they are. We do not want to make those mistakes with any new national park. We want to move to the good side as quickly as possible.The tourist industry in Canada, though, creates more than $84 billion in economic activity, more than $17 billion in export revenue, nearly $10 billion in federal revenue and employs more than 600,000 Canadians. Tourism's contribution to the GDP is worth more than agriculture, fisheries and forestry combined. Despite these figures, the Conservatives have turned their backs on Canadian tourist operators.The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has ranked the lack of support for our tourism industry as one of the top ten barriers to the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. Canada, during the reign of the Conservatives, has cut its tourism marketing budget by 20% over the last nine years. Instead of expanding the budget as it should be with inflation and all the rest, we have seen a cutback of 20%. It has forced the Canadian Tourism Commission to abandon advertising initiatives in lucrative markets like the United States. The Canadian Tourism Commission's core funding has declined from nearly $100 million in 2001.The Conservatives continued lack of leadership in promoting tourism at home and abroad is needlessly damaging what was once a good news story for the Canadian economy. A quick look at other countries shows just how little the Conservatives support the tourism industry. Those results are showing in the incredible drop that we have seen in international tourism visitations to Canada.These are countries where the money has been put in tourism: Ireland spent $211 million a year in promoting its tourism, which is a 14% increase in the same time; Mexico, $153 million, 4% increase; Australia, $147 million, 30% increase; Canada $72 million, down 10% over that same period. By the time when we factor in inflation, we see a massive decrease in the support for the tourism industry.There is an old saying, and this is one that the neoliberals like: “A rising tide raises all boats”. What we see in the tourism industry is a falling tide which has becalmed the industry and left a lot of tourism boats stranded on the shore. (1535)When we talk about increasing national parks, we want to talk about expanding tourism.What operator is going to create a new market in Canada for a new product when the Conservative government has decimated our tourism market. It has refused to put the dollars into it that can return, promote and increase this very important market. It is very content to see the tide go out and the boats sit on the sandy floor of the bay.The Conservatives changed the tourism tax rebates, so only those on packaged tours could apply for a tax refund, rather than the old system where any visitor to Canada could get their GST refunded. This change has really hit small tourism businesses, but has provided an unfair advantage to large tourism operations.What is going to happen in the Northwest Territories? We have small tourism operators. Everybody in the tourism industry starts out small. The average time to make a tourism business profitable is between 10 and 14 years. Someone has to invest. They have to create the market. They have to create the product. They have to make it work. That is what is going to have to happen in Nááts’ihch’oh. That is where we are going to have to put the investment to get the tourism industry to work there.We need the support of the federal government on the federal programs that increase the volume of tourists to Canada. That is a fundamental. I have included this in my speech because we want to see benefits from taking 4,850 square kilometres of land and creating a national park, which is a great idea for the people of Canada, and can be a great idea for the people of the north, but we need to promote tourism.However, there is another story about tourism with the government and how little it supports it, and that is its treatment of Parks Canada. In budget 2012, Parks Canada had 638 positions eliminated. Many of the positions in national parks in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon were lost as well.When we are trying to build a tourism industry based upon natural beauty, national parks, we see that the cutbacks affect that throughout the system.Budget 2012 cut Parks Canada's budget by almost 7.1%. The cuts hit parks and historic sites nationwide. Nova Scotia's Fortress of Louisbourg, touted by the Canadian Tourism Association as a signature designation, is facing the loss of 120 jobs. Banff National Park, another prime tourist destination, is losing 40 jobs.Winter services have been eliminated and visitors are left to guide themselves at historic sites.We have even cut out cross-country ski trail building. One activity that could be guaranteed in national parks throughout northern Canada was cross-country ski events. We do not have that anymore.Budget 2014 included $391 million, allocated over five years, allowing the agency to improve roads, bridges and dams located in Canada's national parks and historic canals. However, the 2014 budget specifies that only $1 million is allocated for this fiscal year and $4 million for 2015-16, with the rest to be handed out in 2016 and onward, after the next election.It is estimated by Parks Canada reports the cost could be as much as $2.7 billion to complete all deferred infrastructure programs.We are happy we see an agreement between the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the current government to create a national park reserve: Nááts’ihch’oh. This is a good thing. However, it cannot stand by itself. Efforts have to be made to create a situation where, what the parliamentary secretary talked about, the economic opportunities, the jobs, the local economy that can come out of a national park can flourish, and that is linked to tourism.(1540)Without the effort put into that, without the effort put into Parks Canada to provide it with the resources to promote tourism, without the effort put in by the Canadian Tourism Commission and without the resources to advertise to promote Canada worldwide, we will not see an increase in our tourism, and we will continue this downward trend. This beautiful country, with so much to offer to so many people around the world, is not getting its due right now. We are spending all kinds of money promoting the oil and gas industry, trying to do the work for multinational corporations that should do their own work because they are making massive profits from these resources. What do we do for the tourism people? What do we do for those little people who are trying to set up small businesses? What do we do to set up the opportunities for people to work in this field? We are cutting back on the resources that are available to promote this very important sector. As I have pointed out, agriculture, forestry and fishing combined do not match up to the impact that tourism has on our economy. We want to be successful in the Northwest Territories. We want our people to have an opportunity to take advantage of the natural beauty of our country and the land. We want our first nations, which have gone into agreements, to invest in business and opportunities in the tourism sector. That is the real growth potential for the national parks in the Northwest Territories.However, the government has shown that it is not interested in that. Perhaps after the next election, we will have another government; it looks likely. At that time, we perhaps will see the true potential of the Canadian national parks system, including all those in the Northwest Territories. They will have an opportunity to grow, so the people in that region, who have given up so much to provide these beautiful national parks to Canada for eternity, will have an opportunity to achieve a prosperous lifestyle from doing that. It will be hard. There is nothing easy about the tourism industry. It takes time, effort and resources, but it also takes the active participation of the Government of Canada in promoting Canada as a destination. We cannot back off from that. We cannot say that it is not important, that we will leave it to the private sector. That does not work. This is our country. We have to make the best opportunities for it. We cannot simply continue to cut the opportunities that exist there to show the world what we have here.I appreciate this. I really hope the Conservatives this time follow up on this, and have an active plan to get the facilities in place. With the Nahanni National Park Reserve expansion, we were promised seven years ago that these facilities would be built, including a proper visitors centre in Fort Simpson. The Nahanni National Park Reserve is a world heritage site. It is famous around the world, yet there is absolutely nothing in Fort Simpson to sell somebody on getting in a plane and flying all the way out there to look at it. There is nothing there. There is nothing that has been put in place yet, after seven years. That is a shocking record. That is a record of ineffective behaviour. That is a record of not understanding how to get along with first nations to accomplish this. This is where that sits in the Nahanni National Park Reserve expansion plans.I trust there is someone on the other side who might be listening to this and understanding that there is work to be done here, that this is not all just clapping our hands for the wonderful things that the government has created. The government has not created anything. It has taken land and put it aside. Now we need the work to go in to making it something.Budget cutsCross-country skiingGovernment billsGovernment expendituresInfrastructureJob creationKluane National Park and Reserve of CanadaNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNahanni National Park Reserve of CanadaNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesParks Canada AgencyS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsTourismColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, developing tourism is a difficult and expensive business. I have been involved with tourism development in the Northwest Territories. I have chaired a tourism advisory board for 10 years.I know what I am talking about when it comes to the need to develop. It takes time. This is not something that is done overnight.If we want an operator to start working on this, we need to show that there is going to be a market. We need to first develop a product, then find the market for the product, and promote that product. That all takes time and resources.While the government says that these are going to develop overnight, they are not. We need to see a commitment on the part of the federal government and Parks Canada to work with any operator in the future to make this happen. That is the reality of the situation.I truly hope that Nááts’ihch’oh becomes a focal point for tourism, but many years of investment and effort are required to make that happen.Government billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsTourismColinCarrieOshawaJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly the issue of the access road was one that raised a number of flags at the time. More than that, the big issue has been the reduction in size of the park. The larger size of the park, 6,450 square kilometres, was developed to best protect conservation values. The range of the animals that the park would be home to and the types of situations that would be involved with watersheds were best served by the 6,450 square kilometre size.The 4,840 square kilometre size has opened up opportunities for other things to happen. Whether they happen or not, the park has not been given the surety that the 6,450 square kilometre size would have done.Environmental protectionGovernment billsMining industryNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesPublic consultationS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, those concerns were shared among 92% of the people who had opinions on it in the public process. As a citizen and representative of the people of the Northwest Territories, I too have those concerns. When we set up a park, we set it up to provide protection for certain values, whether those values are wildlife or the watershed. Those are things that we do.I live next to Wood Buffalo National Park, an area that is considerably larger than this park. It is the largest park in Canada, the largest area in North America with no seismic lines. It is the largest area where there is a complete biosphere. It is an amazing area, and we have paid the price for that. In my community, I would love to see more tourism related to it because, of course, that is a big part of the landscape of northern Alberta and southern N.W.T.When we take out land, we must provide other answers for people. It is a two-way street. The choices have been made. This is what the Conservative government has put forward. We can live with this, but is it the best solution? The people who looked at it in detail said no.Environmental protectionGovernment billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsSouth Nahanni RiverElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, it really remains to be seen. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there are agreements that have been made about certain staffing and certain things are going to go in place in Tulita, a town of 400 people. Those will certainly help that small community with those parks personnel.However, what have I seen in the years that I have lived next to a national park? The number of personnel in the park has gone down under the Liberals. It has gone down under the Conservatives. We have seen that this has not been the panacea that has been laid out for us, because consistent cutbacks over the years have changed that relationship.Economic developmentGovernment billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, this whole question of putting aside land for the future for Canadians is not something that started with the Conservative government. Many of the plans for some of these areas have been ongoing for many years. We have been working on parks, like the park on the north shore of Great Slave Lake, for about 25 years. If it happens to come to fruition under any particular government, that will be great.We have a program in Canada that we continue through successive governments, and I hope it continues. It will continue, I am sure, under a New Democratic government, coming very soon to members' screens. This is the reality of what we do in Canada. However, we need to make sure that when we take land out of circulation, we provide the proper resources. The effort needs to go into them to ensure that they are useful and significant parts of the local economies in those areas. This is what it is all about. We could put aside much land. Remember, this is a national park reserve at this point in time. Does my colleague not agree that fundamentally, this program of protecting natural areas is something that is going to be valuable to Canada in the future? There are still many other areas, perhaps in—Government billsNááts'ihch'oh National Park ReserveNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)Second readingSenate billsJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the call for the expression of interest for the northern greenhouse initiative opened less than a month ago. Projects to increase food security in the north should be a priority, but many communities, farmers, and individuals are not aware of the program or that the call for the expression of interest is open, let alone that it closes tomorrow.Will the minister consider extending the deadline and ensuring that all those concerned, northerners included, are aware of this program?Food supplyNorthern CanadaNorthern Greenhouse InitiativeOral questionsTimUppalHon.Edmonton—Sherwood ParkLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCoastal Fisheries Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting bill. It deals with two oceans that surround Canada, but a third ocean, the Arctic Ocean, is one that is not represented in this bill.Perhaps the minister could talk about the representation of the newest and least protected fishing area Canada may be participating in and how this bill could be modified to support the future likelihood of fishing in the Arctic.Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated FishingGovernment billsIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activitiesS-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection ActSecond readingSenate billsRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCoastal Fisheries Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand up and speak to this particular bill.In my time in Parliament, this has been a new approach the Conservatives have taken of bringing forward bills through the Senate, which is supposed to have a sober second look at the bills that we create. We are putting the cart before the horse, in many ways. It is really unfortunate that the Conservative government has chosen to make this change in parliamentary procedure. Making appointed people the standard-bearers for government bills is completely inappropriate.This is a housekeeping bill that gives the government the authority to ratify the UN Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. It was signed in 2010, and we are getting around to it, which is great.It regulates foreign fishing vessels fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and harvesting sedentary species on the continental shelf beyond Canadian fisheries waters. That is good. It also extends the application of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization regulatory area and prohibits specific classes of foreign fishing vessels from fishing for straddling stocks. The act also prohibits fishing vessels without nationality from fishing in Canadian or NAFO waters. All these things are good. My concern in regard to fishing, and the concern I bring today, is about our Arctic Ocean. Measures like this are needed in the Arctic to protect fish stocks now and fish stocks that we really do not understand very well at all from overfishing in the near future.Climate change is rapidly melting permanent ice in the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean, an area as large as the Mediterranean Sea called the “Arctic donut hole”. The Arctic donut hole is the area within the Arctic Ocean that does not fall within any national boundary. It is open for any type of exploitation by foreign fishing fleets.Until now, the ice that has existed has blocked large-scale commercial fishing vessels, but with currently limited scientific data and no management measures in place, commercial fishing could pose a major threat to an ecosystem already stressed by dramatic warming.We see things happening around the world in northern waters. Iceland and Britain are fighting over mackerel stocks that are moving into different locations in those waters.In the summer of 2007, 40% of the Arctic donut hole was open water. In the middle of the Arctic Ocean, where there is no regulation and there are no territorial waters, 40% was open and could have been vulnerable to overfishing.Mobile fleets of large factory processors range the world for fish and other sources of marine protein. For example, factory trawlers from Chinese ports travel 12,000 kilometres to catch krill near Antarctica. It is only 8,000 kilometres from China to the part of the central Arctic that was ice-free in 2007.Today we heard the government say that it was not too concerned about the Arctic. It does not think anything is going to happen there. Wake up. The government needs to wake up and realize that the world is short of protein and it is going to go wherever there is protein available.In 2011, a senior researcher from South Korea's government-run Korea Maritime Institute said that “Arctic fisheries can become the centre of world fisheries in the near future ”. He extolled their potential to not only meet Korea's high demand for fish when there are declining stocks elsewhere but to rescue the Korean fishing industry from its financial troubles.The researcher said:In the near future, the thawing of the Arctic Ocean will influence the fisheries by creating more fishing opportunities.......[T]he Arctic Ocean coastal states and other states like China, Japan, and EU have competitively established and announced their development policies for the Arctic including those related to fisheries.......it is no doubt an opportunity for the Korean fishing industries as well as those who are seeking new fishing grounds abroad due to diminishing fishing resources....Usually international fisheries are regulated through agreements like NAFO.(1230)In the 1980s, unregulated fishing by Poland, South Korea, Japan, and other countries in the international waters of the Bering Sea severely undermined pollock stocks in just a few years. Russia and the U.S. persuaded these nations to sign the Central Bering pollock agreement to close this area to fishing until scientific data and management measures could ensure a sustainable approach.There is currently no international fisheries organization like NAFO covering the Arctic donut hole, which is precisely why some fear overfishing there. There is, however, an international body that considers sustainable development in the Arctic within its remit. Moreover, it counts aboriginal peoples as permanent participants. It is, of course, the Arctic Council, which Canada right now is the chair of.Six years ago, the U.S. began discussions on creating a fisheries management regime in the Arctic donut hole. Canada has not used its chairmanship of the Arctic Council to support and accelerate these talks. This is required.Interestingly enough, when our Prime Minister goes on and on about Arctic sovereignty, he does not take into account that in 2008, the U.S. put a fishing moratorium on the largest disputed area in the Arctic, which is some 7,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea. The U.S. is setting itself up to take those waters away from us by doing the work that needs to be done in that area. They have also put environmental regulations in place in that area. How is that going to stand up in an international court? It is going to favour the U.S. A key element is to ensure that commercial fishing levels are initially set at zero. It is important to set down the commercial fishing levels until reliable scientific data is available. Over 2,000 scientists from 67 countries have recently signed an open letter calling for a precautionary moratorium on commercial fishing in the high Arctic. They believe that this moratorium should remain in place at least until it is better understood what kinds of fish swim in the central Arctic Ocean, how many of them there are, and how they can be managed sustainably. The United States and the European Union have adopted policies recommending no commercial fishing in the Arctic donut hole until new international arrangements can be negotiated. Where are Canada's interests being expressed here?In the disputed area in the Beaufort Sea, Canada was silent. The U.S. went ahead with the moratorium in that area, setting themselves up for taking over that area and taking over the Canadian interests in that area. That is what is going on right now in Arctic fishing. Where are we in this Parliament in dealing with that issue? Where are we taking the steps, when we have the opportunity as chair of the only organization that encourages international co-operation by governments that have a stake in the area, the Arctic Council?Oh, we are setting up an Arctic economic council. We are trying to encourage business development in that area, which is fine, but should we not put the environmental concerns we have in the area first? Is it not a logical progression to set good environmental standards, to ensure that we understand what the fishing stocks are, and to move ahead with the kinds of things that are going to protect that region before we put our efforts into an Arctic economic council, which is going to push forward on resource development, shipping, and perhaps fishing as well? What the current Canadian government has done on the Arctic Council, with the concurrence of other nations, because they have gone along with it, is create a dynamic problem for the environment in the Arctic. We have taken away the focus we had on the Arctic Council to deal with the environment first and foremost, and that is going to play out in the fishing industry as well. Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated FishingArctic OceanCanadian Arctic sovereigntyGovernment billsIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activitiesMoratoriumS-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection ActSecond readingSenate billsFinDonnellyNew Westminster—CoquitlamFrançoisLapointeMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into this debate. I will mention that I was in Vancouver when our leader made the announcement on this particular aspect of our policy going forward.I had an interesting conversation with a fellow who works at the Vancouver airport, under the wing, taking care of the business we all rely on: moving our baggage, ensuring that the planes come into the docks in a correct fashion, making sure that no damage occurs to these planes that we fly on, and making sure that everything is taken care of. He was earning $10 an hour in that very regulated area.It is simply unacceptable that today someone in that type of responsible position earns $10 an hour. No one can live in Vancouver, in a decent fashion, on $10 an hour. That is an extremely expensive place. Let us think about that worker having to make his way to the Vancouver airport, probably from some outlying district like Surrey, to work, to serve the people of Canada in a good, responsible, safe fashion doing extraordinary work.This is not acceptable. Does the member agree?British ColumbiaFederally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsVancouverAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, I just want to get into this federal-provincial argument a bit here. What is happening in this country is that there is a race to the bottom. Businesses pick up on that. They move to provinces where the corporate tax rate is lower, and they put their head office there. When it comes to employees, the people who work for us in this country, they are the ones who suffer when provinces play the game of keeping the low minimum wage so they can attract industry into that particular province.The federal government wants to take down the barriers for trade in this country, and make us all uniform. At the same time it will not do anything for the workers in this country. It will not recognize that the workers have a right to a decent living and a decent wage wherever they live in this country. Does the Liberal Party agree with that?Federally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsRodgerCuznerCape Breton—CansoRodgerCuznerCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is pathetic that the Minister of Labour quoted 2008 statistics as justification for her argument about the labour rates in Canada. That speaks volumes about the Conservative government which has cut back on Statistics Canada finding out what is actually happening with Canadians.When we look at the 2008 statistics, we find that the minimum wage at the time was around $8 across the country. Yes, perhaps there were a few people in the federal system who were earning $8, but we are talking about $15. The difference in those statistics means that there were tens of thousands of people in 2008 who were not earning $15 working for the federal government, and we have not seen that much wage inflation in those six years since 2008. We know darn well that right now many Canadians who work under federal jurisdiction do not earn $15 an hour and could benefit from this program.Does my colleague not agree that this shows the terrible situation we have when the federal Minister of Labour has to rely on 2008 statistics and to misinterpret them in presenting them to Parliament?Federally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsRaymondCôtéBeauport—LimoilouRaymondCôtéBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across for his discourse because he put it in better terms than the Minister of Labour. The minister said there are only 400 people who would be affected by this. My colleague, quite correctly, pointed out that the study showed that there would be many people affected by it because, although there are only 400 at the $8 minimum, there were 40,000 at that time who were in the $12 range. Wage inflation has not been that much in the last six years that those under $12 an hour would not be impacted by a minimum wage of $15. That is simple math.I would like to hear from my colleague across the way, who seems to have a better grasp on this situation and wants to give a more truthful story than the Minister of Labour. Federally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsPhilMcColemanBrantPhilMcColemanBrant//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member's deliberations about the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments. I think back to the Conservatives' plan for a single national securities commission, which would take it away from the provinces. For the benefit of corporations, the Conservatives are willing to take away certain powers from individual provinces.When it comes to wages and workers, though, the Conservatives very much want to let the provinces decide. They will let the provinces spiral downward in terms of their support of workers.The idea that the provinces are the best place to set minimum wages exhibits the same type of thinking from when provinces started to reduce the corporate income tax rate in order to attract businesses. The same thing applies to workers' wages.If the federal government set an example of $15 an hour for workers' wages within the next four years, we would be setting a post that the provinces could look at as the right amount, the amount that they should be aiming for. That is not happening today. The federal government is not interested in participating and protecting workers.Why is it not willing to come to the table here with this very simple and straightforward opportunity to support the workers of this country?Federally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsProvincial jurisdictionBradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, this has been an engaging debate today, on all sides. That is something we appreciate after coming through last year, when the New Democratic Party had to usually carry the ball here when it came to making speeches.The point I want to make, very quickly, is that there is an inequity that has occurred with the minimum wage across Canada. Over the last 40 years, we have seen a zero increase in the real wages for minimum wage. In that same time, the average real wage increase for the rest of Canadians was over 15%. What has happened is that the minimum wage workers have lost position in society over the last 40 years in comparison to other workers, yet they make up a large and very important part of our workforce.By accepting this motion, by re-establishing a minimum wage that is reflective of the conditions other workers come under, we are creating equity in the country that needs to be there. Would my colleague not agree that equity is an important principle that guides our fair and honest country?Federally regulated employers and employeesMinimum wageOpposition motionsJohnCarmichaelDon Valley WestJohnCarmichaelDon Valley West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Canadian Heritage]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the opportunity to have this report brought forward.Within the Northwest Territories, we have been very successful this year at the Olympics. We had two participants out of a population of 40,000 people. It is very significant. It speaks to the work that has been done by our government in the north to encourage, through participation in things like the Arctic Winter Games, young people to get into competitive sports. I think that is part of it as well, that these opportunities are given.Do you see the Canada Summer Games and those types of activities leading people forward to the Olympics?8510-412-35 Second Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, "Keep the Momentum Going: Canada's Preparations for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi"8512-412-35 Government Response to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, "Keep the Momentum Going: Canada's Preparations for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi"Arctic Winter GamesCanada Summer GamesConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 8Northwest TerritoriesOlympic Games winter 2014Paralympic Games winter 2014SochiStanding Committee on Canadian HeritageMatthewDubéChambly—BorduasBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersVictims Bill of Rights Act [Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to keep it simple for the minister. I would like to repeat the question. When this bill goes forward to committee, which it will do after this time allocation, will the minister guarantee that we will hear from those witnesses who can provide expert testimony, in detail, on this particular bill so we can make sure, like for every piece of legislation, that every aspect of it is correct and as good as possible?Is he going to allow this type of work to go ahead at committee, or are we going to see the same kind of business that has been going on for the last year in this Parliament, where the committees have been limited in the number of witnesses they can see?C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain ActsCanadian Victims Bill of RightsGovernment billsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationVictims of crimePeterMacKayHon.Central NovaPeterMacKayHon.Central Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, with this trade deal, Canada is the second largest foreign investor in Honduras. This is the elephant in the room with most of the trade deals with these developing countries. Canada wants protection for its multinationals who are taking their profits from resource extraction in Canada and investing it in other countries where labour and environmental conditions are lower, but they want very strict control over their ability to invest and make their money back. Is this not really what these free trade deals are with these countries? We have seen the evidence presented that it has not increased trade, but it has opened the door for Canadian companies to take advantage of these developing markets and natural resources in those areas. Is that not what is really at stake here?C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of HondurasCanada-Honduras Free Trade AgreementCivil and human rightsEnvironmental protectionFree tradeGovernment billsHondurasMining industryMultinationalsReport stageReport stage motionsTrade agreementsGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersVeterans Hiring ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1850)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-27. Of course, I will be one of the few in Parliament who actually gets to speak to the bill, because we have gone to the process of closure very quickly.I think it is unfortunate that closure took place today, when tomorrow and the rest of the week we will have many veterans here on the Hill. “Rock the Hill”, they call it.The Conservatives have not seemed to show much of the courage of their convictions in perhaps having the debate about this particular issue when the veterans are here on the Hill. They are very anxious to get this over with tonight. That is the reality of what the Conservatives have done here with closure. They have taken the opportunity we could have had to have the veterans here to listen to the different points of view of the people in this Parliament on this subject. Conservatives are very happy to get closure on the bill and get it away.I have the opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading. Of course we support the principle of assisting with priority hiring for injured veterans and doing more for veterans within the civil service. How could anyone in this Parliament not be solid with that principle? What we argue at second reading is principle and how bills should be formed, using the knowledge we all have about the history of the service of the armed forces in Canada.My father was a veteran of the Second World War. He spent five years in Europe in Bomber Command. He always said that toward the end of the war, the CCF was very popular in Canada, and their numbers were well up. The government respected that and brought in very good programs for veterans when they returned from the war. It did not want to see this turn into a socialist paradise, which may have happened with these veterans who came back. It offered land in Edmonton. My father got a piece of land on a veterans estate. Veterans got an opportunity for low-interest loans to build their houses and to set up their families after being in the war and being away from their communities and their loved ones for the period of time they were in Europe, that five years. Compare that to some of the commitment our servicemen make today of 10 and 15 years overseas.As well, the government at that time tried to hire many veterans, and my father got a job with the Department of Transport, working in the Arctic, taking care of the airports. The skills matched up in that regard, because he worked in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and that sort of relationship existed at that time.As well, in every small community across Canada, there were lots of veterans who came back from that big war. The Legions were working very well. There was comradeship and an opportunity in every small community to share with many other veterans. I remember growing up in this atmosphere of Legions and the respect everyone in the community had for the veterans.Compare that to today. The veterans come back from a foreign conflict, generally of a terribly undefined nature, where they are not involved in liberating countries. They are involved in inter-regional conflicts that have so many variables attached to them. When they walk away from those conflicts, do they have the honour people had coming out of the Second World War? Do they have the approbation of the citizenry across the country for which they have served? No. That does not happen anymore. Is there a large volume of veterans who can join together in common places like the Legion? No. In fact, across the country, Legions are shutting down.In the major city in my riding, Yellowknife, even with Joint Task Force (North) there, the opportunity to maintain the Legion has almost failed completely.(1855)The times have changed. There is no structure anymore for veterans, like there was in the past.The good side of it is that we recognize post-traumatic stress disorder. That was not part of the vernacular of the Second World War. We are much more understanding of the nature of the mental injuries veterans suffer in these conflicts.Bill C-27 tries to provide some answers, but it is not adequate. We do not think we should change the principle that a veteran is a veteran. That principle should remain in the bill, but it is not there. That is one problem we have with the principles of the bill. They are not dealing with all veterans in the same fashion as they used to be dealt with. They are not taking care of people and keeping the commonality among veterans that is so important.The Conservative government is offering up the opportunity to go into the public service. The public service has changed so much. It is not the public service of 1945 to 1950. It is different. More specialized skills and education are required.People may be put in priority positions that may not work for them. My Liberal colleague talked about the U.S. government program that includes skills identification. Quite clearly, it is important not to put people in jobs they will not be satisfied with and where there may fail. That would not help the veterans.We need to pay careful attention to these people. They do not have the same opportunities veterans had in the past. They do not have the same volume of strength that 500,000 veterans had. The veterans today are thin in number. They are not a large part of the population. They need more specific attention. The Conservative government should be thinking about how it could provide the services these veterans require that would make their transition to normal civilian life successful.This debate must continue until we come up with solutions. I look forward to the bill going to committee, because perhaps at that time, we could consider some of its details. We all agree with the principle that we should do more for the veterans, that we should find ways to integrate them into the workforce. How much more could we provide to the bill in committee on some of the issues we have identified in the very short time we have had to talk about this bill? We have a very short time to communicate in the House about the issues surrounding veterans.We are doing our veterans a disservice by not continuing this debate for a period of time. They are going to be on the Hill, but they will not have the opportunity to speak to parliamentarians so we can carry their message forward in the House. We could do it at committee, but it is not really the same as talking here in the House. The bill does not go far enough. We want to see it improved. We are willing to send the bill to committee. I encourage the government to take this seriously, to look at the other options put forward in committee, to listen to the witnesses, and to be open to amending the bill to make it work better for the veterans.C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces)Government billsPublic Service and public servantsReintegration into working lifeSecond readingStaffingVeteransPierreDionne LabelleRivière-du-NordErinO'TooleDurham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersVeterans Hiring ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1905)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but I do not agree with him. It was a couple of months ago that I had a very long and detailed conversation not only with a retired colonel in Yellowknife, from the armed forces, who explained to me many of the details of what was going on with veterans. I also had the opportunity to meet a serviceman who was experiencing the difficulty of getting his condition recognized by the authorities. Here is someone who is still in the armed forces, who has post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and yet has had an incredibly difficult time getting through the bureaucracy to understand how he can get himself healed.For you to suggest that we are not in conversation with veterans or that we do not hear from other people about the problems in the system is really unfortunate, because we are all committed to doing a good job.BureaucracyC-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces)Government billsPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingStaffingVeteransErinO'TooleDurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersVeterans Hiring ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1910)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely that this process is not simply about hiring. It is going to take more than that. In many respects, the veterans are young people who are coming back. They are going to have to continue their work lives. We can look to the past as to how people accomplished that, but this is the modern age, where there are particular skill sets in many cases.I think of MPs. If we leave our jobs as MPs, we can get skills retraining after one year on this job.C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces)Government billsPublic Service and public servantsSecond readingStaffingVeteransMatthewDubéChambly—BorduasBryanHayesSault Ste. Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in this debate going back to one of the first iterations of the bill. It became very clear on the nuclear side that we were trying to establish a liability limit that would fit with what the international community would accept rather than what Canadians need for their own protection. That is what was going on at the time in 2007 when this first came out. We were trying to establish the lowest possible liability limit that would satisfy the requirements of the U.S., especially the U.S., because if a U.S. company invests in another country and its environmental standards are not high enough, then the U.S. company is judged under the U.S. standards, which are much higher, so there was a problem at the time in trying to move nuclear industries into foreign hands.Does my colleague think that this type of situation, where we are more concerned about what is the least possible liability that this nuclear industry can bear in order to satisfy international standards, is the way to go with this legislation, or should it be actually looking at what is proper liability for Canadians, to protect them and to protect the government in the event of a nuclear calamity?C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityConvention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear DamageEnergy and fuelGovernment billsInternational cooperationNuclear safety and securitySecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, after a number of years, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this new Bill C-22, an act that would set the terms and conditions of liability not only for nuclear issues but also for oil and gas issues. It is a little misleading in the title, as it speaks to only the offshore. I will point out later on that the title is not exactly right.First, at second reading, we deal with principles. This is when we talk about the principles of the bill. The principle I think we can all support is that liability for nuclear accidents and oil and gas spills should lie in a decent fashion with those who make those things happen. We can accept that the principle of the bill moving forward is okay. However, many of the details still remain, as they were six years ago, understated. Six years ago we talked about a $650-million liability limit for nuclear plants. Now we are talking about $1 billion.What has happened in the intervening time? Well, we have seen what happened at Fukushima, and so we know quite clearly that nuclear liability is at a higher level than we ever dreamed or thought possible in a modern state, such as Japan, with the equipment we assumed would have been handled in a decent fashion. However, we found out that right from the very beginning, the opportunity for failure had been built into the system. Therefore, liability is important. It is important right from day one.When people understand the nature of the liability, they are not going to shortchange during the construction of the facilities. They are not going to start out bean-counting how much they have to invest in a particular facility to avoid the type of unlimited liability that would apply to it. When we reduce liability, we probably end up with a lesser product to service our nuclear or offshore oil and gas industries. That, I think, is quite clear in the modern economics of today.Most companies employ scores of accountants to examine the liability of their actions. When we set liability limits, they will determine the degree to which companies ensure that the safety of their projects is well maintained.Is $1 billion enough for the nuclear industry to ensure that a nuclear operator is going to put the best possible effort into creating a nuclear plant? Is it enough to ensure the best possible effort in running an existing plant? When there are conditions, such as at Fukushima, where the backup power supply could quite easily be flooded, is $1 billion enough to ensure that someone does a careful safety analysis of the existing facilities?Liability limits are extremely important, because they set the parameters for the industry. As we go along in this debate and see at committee the kinds of presentations about nuclear liability, the new presentations after Fukushima, I think it will become very clear to us that $1 billion is probably not enough.I am going to leave that subject and move over to the liability regimes for offshore oil and gas operations. Interestingly enough, we speak of offshore, but here in appendix 1, we talk about onshore in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. If one is onshore within 200 metres of inland water, under the current liability limits, there is no limit specified. Now it would be put at $25 million.(1920)What has happened recently in the Northwest Territories? Between Wrigley and Norman Wells, there was an oil spill from a buried pipeline that has easily cost that amount of money to clean up, and it still has not been dealt with completely. There are aging pipelines throughout this country, as well as in the Northwest Territories, and there are facilities that need attention.What happens when we set a $25 million liability limit on an oil pipeline that has existed for 30 or 40 years? How does it work out when one company sells it to another, in the nature of the oil and gas industry? Who is taking care of it? To what degree do they see the liability as being the most important part of what they are doing? To me, $25 million on land in the Northwest Territories does not sound like a lot of money to take care of the kinds of spills that can occur from buried oil pipelines traversing the territory.When it comes to blowouts in the High Arctic, there has actually been one. In the late 1970s in the Arctic Archipelago, there was a major blowout, but luckily it was natural gas. The flare from that natural gas blowout was visible by aviation. It was used as a navigation medium in the High Arctic because it was so large and went on for nine or ten months. We can imagine what would happen with that type of spill if that had been an oil discovery that had blown out. Within the limited number of wells that have been drilled in the Arctic, we have already had a blowout. That is the reality of it. Now we are talking about a liability limit offshore of $1 billion. With the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, tens of billions of dollars were involved in the cleanup. How do we quantify that in the Arctic? The National Energy Board did a study on it and determined that it does not really know how to deal with it, but it is going to just approve projects as they come up and it will see what companies are offering in terms of how to deal with blowout situations or other types of spills. Interestingly enough, there is a clause in here. With proof of fault or negligence, there would be unlimited liability in most of these cases. What we have done is separate it out. It is $1 billion if it is not a company's fault and it just happened to blow out. That is what it costs. If it was a company's fault, then it has to pay, pay, and pay.How does that work, when the National Energy Board approves a project when it knows it does not have any solution for a blowout? Where does the liability land then? How does that work in a situation in the Arctic? These are questions that need examination. This is why we should talk about these things in Parliament. That is why I am standing here today taking the time that I have, which is 10 minutes. Does that cover the full knowledge we have about these situations? Does that answer any questions? Not really. That is not much. No, we are going to need some serious time in committee to do anything with this particular bill, to understand the liability.Interestingly enough, we are setting liability limits on land in the Northwest Territories. What did we go through in Parliament just a little while ago? There was a devolution agreement, whereby the Government of the Northwest Territories is now responsible for a lot of the stuff on the land. How is that going to work? Has the Government of the Northwest Territories given its okay to this liability limit on the land for which it now has responsibility? These are questions that we need answered. These are things that are obviously going to take a long time in committee. We have been through this before. Seven years ago we started this. Many bills have been brought forward in that time and the government has thrown up its hands on more than one occasion. We look forward to seeing this in committee. We have agreed that the principle is right, but the details in the bill need a lot of work.C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityCostsEnergy and fuelEnvironmental clean-upGovernment billsNorman Wells oil fieldNorthwest TerritoriesNuclear safety and securityOffshore technologyOil spillsPipeline transportationPolluter-pay principleSecond readingLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, in terms of polluter pays, I agree that those who go into operations that take risk have to be responsible for that risk. That is quite clear.Polluting the environment in this day and age is one of the largest risks one can take. That, quite clearly, is what people think. There is a social licence about it. No one is interested in seeing oil spilled on the ground. They want it cleaned up. This is not the 1920s or the 1930s; it is 2014. That is quite clear.When it comes to sustainable development, only by creating the parameters that ensure that companies do every possible thing to make their projects safe will we have sustainable development. Was it sustainable to lose that oil in the Gulf of Mexico? There was almost $100 billion blown off there. Was that sustainable?Was what happened in Fukushima sustainable? There was ruined landscape. The cleanup caused an enormous tax burden on the people of Japan. It probably caused damage to the Pacific Ocean, damage that will last for the rest of our lifetimes. How is that sustainable?Liability limits set the parameters for how the project develops.C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityEnergy and fuelEnvironmental clean-upGovernment billsPolluter-pay principleSecond readingSustainable developmentFrançoisChoquetteDrummondKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1925)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the energy field for a long time on different issues. I was special adviser to the premier on energy in the Northwest Territories.I think all energy should be priced according to what its full-value cost is. When we give nuclear energy this break, what we are doing is skewing the market. That is wrong. That is just what we are doing with the fossil fuel industry: we are giving it breaks over and over again through regulation and tax incentives that are really skewing the market. The same thing would happen here with nuclear liability. If no one is facing up to the actual liability for putting up a plant, we are not doing a service to our children and grandchildren.C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityCostsEnergy and fuelGovernment billsNuclear safety and securitySecond readingKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—BiggarJamieNichollsVaudreuil-Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his discourse on this bill, but I think he has missed something. He talked about the offshore regime, but when we examine the bill, we find that almost a third of Canada is covered onshore by a liability regime. In the Northwest Territories, the maximum liability without proof of fault or negligence is $25 million onshore. Therefore, it seems that perhaps he needs to spend a little more time to understand this bill. We should be spending more time in Parliament talking about it, because obviously there are things in it that he has not seen yet.C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityEnergy and fuelGovernment billsOil spillsSecond readingEarlDreeshenRed DeerEarlDreeshenRed Deer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have removed the requirement that the gas tax funds be used for sustainable infrastructure, one of the few remaining federal programs fighting climate change. This is at a time when the mayor of Vancouver has said we need more, not less, federal funding to deal with climate change.Why are the Conservatives excluding basic necessities like roads from the Building Canada fund and turning a $21 billion program for green infrastructure into one that can be used to fill potholes or build gazebos?Climate change and global warmingGas Tax FundInfrastructureOral questionsSustainable developmentPeterMacKayHon.Central NovaDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsDivorce ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from some 900 residents of my constituency. The undersigned citizens of Canada call on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act as in MP Maurice Vellacott's bill, Bill C-560, to require that equal parenting be treated as the rebuttable presumption in custody decisions, except in the cases of proven neglect or abuse.C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsJoint child custodyMarriage and divorceParental responsibilityPetition 412-3222RalphGoodaleHon.WascanaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Elections Act [Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, once again, we see closure in the House of Commons. We are at report stage. We are reporting back many amendments that have been made to the bill. Many of these amendments need some disclosure within the House of Commons. We need to talk about the amendments that have been made. Why is the government taking this tack? The bill was first presented as being a complete bill and has now gone through many amendments, yet is still imperfect, and we are being refused the opportunity to discuss those amendments.Why is the government doing this?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsMotionsReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also outlined how Conservatives have bungled the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency from the start.The government has failed to create a real headquarters in the north and has no plans to do so. Thirty-five per cent of CanNor's staff are in Ottawa, compared to less than a third in Iqaluit. One senior position was even filled by a person who lives in Iqaluit but was moved to Ottawa.Why is the minister moving northerners to Ottawa instead of creating a northern headquarters, as she promised?Canadian Northern Economic Development AgencyEconomic developmentGovernanceLabour forceNorthern CanadaOral questionsTonyClementHon.Parry Sound—MuskokaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, environmental issues surrounding the Alberta oil sands are some of the most controversial pollution problems in Canada. First nations in the region are concerned about health issues, environmental degradation, and the impacts on wildlife and plants. Nationally and internationally, these pollution concerns have had a negative impact on Canada's reputation.Recently I had the opportunity to visit Fort McMurray's Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, a multi-stakeholder air monitoring agency. It operates 15 state-of-the-art monitoring stations that provide data to make informed decisions on environmental protection. It is vital to have the best possible data so that politicians of all stripes, federally and provincially, can take appropriate action to create an effective environmental management regime through regulatory measures.Unfortunately, the failure of Conservative governments, federally and provincially, to create new environmental regulations to protect the people of northern Alberta is both foolish and short-sighted. In 2015, an NDP government will do much better.AlbertaBituminous sandsEnvironmental monitoringStatements by MembersPhilMcColemanBrantRayBoughenPalliser//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Control of First Nations Education ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have the brief opportunity on behalf of my caucus to speak on this bill. That is, of course, because of the closure that the government has brought in on this very important bill. This debate will end today and we will not hear any more about it.The second reading of bills is to talk about the content of the bill and to come to grips with whether we support it or not.I am also very pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Between the two of us, I think we have over 100 years of time in northern communities across this vast land. My colleague's knowledge and understanding of that should be of great interest to everyone in the House.I want to speak a bit about my experience. I grew up in the north. My first school, at grade 1, was the Fort Smith Federal Day School, run by the Government of Canada. It had two residential schools attached to it, Breynat Hall and Grandin College. I grew up through the system with residential school survivors, and many who were not survivors. Many of my classmates came to untimely ends due to social conditions, and the residential apology that took place was a very emotional moment for me. I recognized that so much had happened to first nations people across the country, and it was very personal to me.My experience also includes being the chair of a local school society, where over 50% of the students were aboriginal students. I was chair of the board of governors of NWT Aurora College. The college's great dedication is toward putting aboriginal students into career positions, and it is very successful at doing that.I understand the systems that we have set up in the Northwest Territories to deal with education in small and remote communities.I will move to the Report of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve. I want to keep my remarks to funding, because it is an area that in my experience has always been very important to talk about when we talk about schools in remote and isolated communities. The report states:Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and used specifically for education purposes. [...]First Nation education reform must be based on strong, positive education outcomes, not on an average cost per student approach. [...] Given the magnitude of barriers faced by First Nation learners, the level of resources and investment required per student will likely be substantially greater than the average level of expenditures provided in the public school system.That is clearly the case in the Northwest Territories. We have 8,500 students in our schools in remote and isolated communities, as well as in large communities, like Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Hay River, and Inuvik. There the average expenditure per student is $22,000 a year. When I was the chair of our local education society, in 1985, the level of funding per student in the schools that I represented was equivalent to what the Conservative government is providing today for the students in first nations schools across the country. We are talking about schools that require greater levels of funding in order to provide services. There is no question about that. There is no question that when we are dealing with a school in an isolated remote situation, where we have to work very hard to entice teachers to go there to teach, or pay the extraordinarily high costs of servicing schools, all of the costs of providing education to a very small number of students are very high. That is simply the case.When we look at what is done in Canada, where we have 143,000 first nations children, in 2011-12, Aboriginal Affairs spent about $1.5 billion total. It sounds like a big number. For 8,500 students in the Northwest Territories, we spent in excess of $200 million a year.(1225)When we look at what has happened in first nations education, we have to look at the dollars and ask how anyone can provide those services that are required across this country in remote locations, away from cities and from all the other things that allow the cost of providing those services to be reduced, and how that can be expected. We have schools that are chronically underfunded today. When we look at what the Conservatives are offering to put into the schools, starting in 2016 another $400 million per year on top of that, we see that the total amount provided in 2016 is far below what is really required to deal with those schools.There are 515 on-reserve schools. Right now, there is a $200 million budget for repairs, maintenance, and infrastructure for schools and classrooms for 515 schools. No wonder these schools are failing apart. They simply cannot do that work. This has been going on since the Liberals. It has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years. Basically, we have never funded these schools properly. We have left them in a situation where schools are falling apart.An hon. member: The member from Calgary said it did not matter.Mr. Dennis Bevington: Well that is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about 515 schools and we have to replace a certain amount every 30 years. What does it cost to replace a school these days, especially in isolated, northern, and remote locations? I would refer members to some of the school replacements taking place in the Northwest Territories where the average replacement cost is between $30 million and $50 million for schools of 200 people. The average school on-reserve has around 200 students. This is the cost we are talking about.If they are talking about a 30-year replacement plan, then those schools are going to eat up a heck of a lot more money that what they have in the budget here for operations, for maintenance, and for capital costs. What we have and will continue to have, unless we recognize that this is fundamentally underfunded, is having to add major dollars to it. There were the Liberals with their Kelowna Accord. This bill simply would not put the money where it is needed. We can spend billions of dollars a year updating our fighter fleet, but when it comes to upgrading our children's future we are not willing to put those kinds of dollars on the line.This subject requires more debate and I know I have two minutes to talk about this very important topic and to talk about what we are actually doing with this bill. It is very difficult. I find it repugnant that the Conservatives have called closure on this subject where there is so much to say. There is so much to talk about that the couple of days of debate that we are taking at second reading is really ridiculous. I am in some ways outraged by it, but it is a pattern of the current government, when the Conservatives put forward in their way with all the lofty-sounding principles that they put forward here, and when we start to dig into this bill and realize that we are simply going to continue the situation that exists today. There is simply not enough effort put into this to make the change. What we need is a watershed of funding for these schools to bring them to a level that they can exist and can provide the services that first nations students require. My colleagues will talk about all the other aspects in the bill, and they would continue to talk about it if they had the chance. We do not have the chance to even get close to all the other subjects within this bill.I appreciate this brief time here, and I appreciate that my colleague will come with some more statements very shortly, right after me, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say as well.C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other ActsFirst NationsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsInfrastructureSchoolsSecond readingSplitting speaking timeJoanCrockattCalgary CentreJeanCrowderNanaimo—Cowichan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Control of First Nations Education ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.The problem we have is that these issues are complex. When we talk about turning over control of education to first nations, it is a process that is expensive and time-consuming.I think of the community of Deline, in my riding, which finally completed a self-government agreement. It took 20 years to get to the self-government agreement, let alone adding on the aspect of the agreement of taking over education, which is going to take another significant period of time. We are talking about processes that are complex and are going to take much time, and resources as well.Do I see within this bill an indication that the government is going to put resources into the development of first nations regional education opportunities? Those are good ideas. I fully agree that first nations taking over control of education is a good idea, but I do not see that the process has been fully outlined in this bill, or that it has been funded in a way that first nations could simply pick up on it.C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other ActsFirst NationsGovernment billsSchoolsSecond readingJeanCrowderNanaimo—CowichanErinO'TooleDurham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Control of First Nations Education ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would hardly call a 10-minute speech in the House a delay in the bill moving forward. That is simply ridiculous.However, I would love to see the government put forward some details of its analysis on what it actually takes in terms of funding to bring aboriginal schools across this country up to the level that they should be. If the member shows me the details that the Conservatives have put into understanding what it takes, that would be a big start toward supporting this type of legislation. However, they will not do it. They will not show us what it actually costs. They do not want to put the money forward.C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other ActsFirst NationsGovernment billsSchoolsSecond readingErinO'TooleDurhamRomeoSaganashAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Control of First Nations Education ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the bill as well. Having spent time on the aboriginal affairs committee, I realize the great depth of the problems in education among first nations. There are the capital requirements to restore a decent education system across those vast, rural, remote communities across the country. Coming from the Northwest Territories, I understand the cost of capitalization for building facilities. We are talking about 600 reserves. The capital cost for a new school is between $50 million and $100 million to get a decent school for people on a reserve. With 600 reserves, many schools every year would need to be brought up to a certain standard that would meet Canadian standards. Does the member see anything in this bill that would guarantee that when first nations are moving to take over the education system, the Government of Canada, which is responsible for the existing condition of facilities on reserves, would upgrade those facilities for those first nations?C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other ActsFirst NationsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsInfrastructureSchoolsSecond readingCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul'sCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsBlood and Organ DonationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions from Canadians asking the Government of Canada to return the rights of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need. No matter their race, religion, or sexual preference, the right of people to give blood or donate organs is universal. Blood servicesDiscriminationGay and lesbian personsOrgan donationPetition 412-2450Petition 412-2451CarolynBennettHon.St. Paul'sWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNorthwest Territories Devolution ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the government a petition from the Gwich'in citizens of my riding in the Northwest Territories, who have put forward a petition to speak to the unfair provisions within Bill C-15, under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act's sector.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityEnvironmental protectionLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesPetition 412-2386FrancineRaynaultJolietteMarkWarawaLangley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for introducing this topic, because it has taken over Parliament and much of the media in Canada. It is a subject of great interest to many people.What do we have here? I have tried to figure out why the Conservatives are behaving in the fashion they do. It goes back to what I was told years ago about their philosophy, the Straussian philosophy, the philosophy that the elite is right. The idea is that they are the elite, so they are right. It does not matter whether they lie, cheat, or do anything else to misinform the population, because they are right, they know they are right, and they are doing the right thing for people because they are the elite. This is their philosophy. This is the philosophy of the Conservative Party right now. This is what they are doing. This is why they continue to act in this fashion on so many issues. This is why we have the spectacle of a minister who has no clothes, other than his own party, to back him up. He is walking naked in terms of support from the public, experts, and intellectuals about what he is doing with this legislation, yet he has the nerve to stand over and over again, clad in so very little and so exposed to our slings and arrows. The only solution to this is an election.Canada Elections ActClosureOpposition motionsParliament of Canada ActPartisanshipTime allocationScottSimmsBonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—WindsorScottSimmsBonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1120)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that presentation, but I find it absurd in some ways.The member has tied together time allocation with the Speech from the Throne, which does not change a single bit of legislation in Canada. He has tied this together with the budget address, which does not change a single bit of legislation in Canada. However, this legislation today actually does something to the legislation of the House. It is patently absurd to think that time allocation for things done every year by a government, such as a budget address or a Speech from the Throne, is tied to changes in the electoral laws governing how we operate our democracy. There is outstanding confusion created by that. I think it can be pretty clear to everyone that the rules of Parliament are set up so that the budget implementation bill, which actually does change legislation, is not subject to any time allocation under law. It is only done through the purview of the government of the day. Does my colleague not agree that you are not talking about the same type of issues when you bring up the Speech from the Throne and the budget—Canada Elections ActClosureElectoral reformOpposition motionsParliament of Canada ActParliamentary reformTime allocationDaveMacKenzieOxfordJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to my colleague's discourse because this is the problem I have right now. I am going through a process where I know that this bill will disenfranchise a number of people in the isolated northern communities. There is no question about it. That is what will happen. It has happened with the photo ID bill, even with the vouching.This is the current situation there. A person who does not have ID comes into a polling station in Fort Good Hope where the people there might have known him for 40 years and they would not be able to vouch for him. He does not have his ID with him. Perhaps he left it. Perhaps he lost it. Perhaps he cannot get access to his house because of his key. There will be reasons why people do not have identification with them when they get to the polling station. Those people sitting around that polling station could all vouch him. They have known him for 40 years, yet he will be turned away. This is a disgrace.I looked at the election in Afghanistan. The people were very concerned that everybody gets to vote. As long as they have a clean finger they get to vote. If they do not have a clean finger, they go out the door. That is the way a fledgling democracy knows that the right to vote is absolutely important. The Afghani people got it better than these guys across the way. What is going on in this country?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsCanada Elections ActClosureElectoral reformOpposition motionsParliament of Canada ActTime allocationVoter identificationTedHsuKingston and the IslandsBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest.The member was a bit hyperbolic about the timeframe. When we consider any debate that goes on in Parliament, the government has the right to not put up speakers and to reduce the amount of debate in that way.In looking at the record of the past number of years, we see the debate on the postal workers back-to-work legislation; the government simply put in all-night sessions so it could get through the debate. Really, there are many tools used in the House of Commons to ensure that debate is conducted in a reasonable fashion.This bill has so many complex changes to the electoral system, which is the basis of this democracy, that more time is required not only in Parliament but in committee. That is why I think this motion today is very appropriate for this particular bill.C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsCanada Elections ActClosureElectoral reformOpposition motionsParliament of Canada ActTime allocationMikeWallaceBurlingtonMikeWallaceBurlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, quite clearly one of the major issues facing Canadian municipalities and others is the infrastructure deficit. We have seen the Conservatives come up with this idea, and it was clearly expressed by my previous colleague, about the Champlain Bridge and the need for the toll on the bridge. My colleague at that time had a valid argument about the nature of tolls and how they change people's habits.Anybody who has had time to travel through Mexico by road and see the difference between the toll roads built by Mexicans in public-private partnerships and the free roads where all the traffic goes, while there is very little traffic on these magnificent toll roads, will understand that simply going through these processes is perhaps not going to determine a result that they would want.Does my colleague believe that infrastructure really is a common need and a common expression of Canadian development, and that it should be covered by means that come out of our public system rather than by this jury-rigged toll system that is being proposed for the Champlain Bridge?Budget 2014 (February 11, 2014)C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measuresChamplain BridgeGovernment billsPublic-private partnershipsSecond readingTollsMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—BagotMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague, who has a cheerleading approach to the budget, to reflect a little on the lack of any effort the government is making in the budget to deal with the promises it made in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an agreement the Conservatives made with the world. It is an agreement that may have some impact on the Canadian economy, but it could possibly have some very positive impacts on the development of green technology. With efforts we could make to live up to our international obligations, we could create an industry Canadians could feel proud of.Right now, the budget offers up probably $800 per Canadian in subsidies to the oil industry, not to the kind of effort we need in this country to move ourselves in a positive direction in this world.How can we hold our heads up in the international context when we simply do not live up to our international obligations?Budget 2014 (February 11, 2014)C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingMarkAdlerYork CentreMarkAdlerYork Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsDementiaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Canadians asking for a national dementia strategy. They call on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia, introduced by the member for Nickel Belt.Alzheimer diseaseC-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for DementiaDementiaNational Strategy for DementiaPetition 412-2185DavidTilsonDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNorthwest Territories DevolutionInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Gwich'in people from the Northwest Territories, who request the House of Commons and Parliament assembled not to approve Bill C-15 or amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, as they feel this is an infringement on their comprehensive land claim agreement.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityLand managementMackenzie ValleyNorthwest TerritoriesPetition 412-1811WayneEasterHon.MalpequeNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsReference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not like having to stand here and talk about the honesty and dishonesty of parliamentarians. This is actually a noble debate, which has real significance to us all, and we should all learn a lesson from it. I do not want to hear the comment that we should all take the opportunity to misrepresent the facts in Parliament. We need to understand what the debate is about. Unfortunately, one member has been clearly shown to have said something in Parliament that was not the case. We are debating this now. However, what we learn from it is more important than what happens to the member sitting across the way. What we learn about our Parliament and about each individual and their relative honesty when they speak in this Parliament is the important part of the debate. That is why this is a debate about privilege. It is a privilege to speak in this House, but it is only a privilege if we tell the truth. I say to my colleague that this is not a hanging exercise. This is an exercise to restore the faith of Canadians in our Parliament. When I hear comments from the other side that we all lie, that we are all stretching the truth, this is something we should all take to heart. Is it not the case?Allegations of fraud and fraudButt, BradContempt of ParliamentFalse or misleading statementsMembers' remarksMotion to refer the matter to the appropriate committeeParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegeReferences to membersStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsVoter information cardsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his concern about getting this bill right. Quite obviously, some things have gone wrong already with the process that has been undertaken for this legislation. The minister indicated that they thought they were going to get 8,000 or 9,000 people signed up, but they ended up with 23,800. Now they have had another 58,000 show up in the very short period after that.I guess I can go back to the more than 23,000 who have been registered and accepted already. The indication from the minister is that all of those registrations are now under question. Over the past four years, anyone who was first nation and would have been accepted under this registration may have made choices in their lives. They may have made choices about investing in the Mi'kmaq communities and in Newfoundland. They may have made choices about where and how they live. They may have made choices about their relationships. All of a sudden, those 23,000 people are put in some degree of question.This bill would actually take out the liability of the government for anything that it does to those 23,000 people. Is that not the case?C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsNewfoundland and LabradorQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, as we delve further into the bill before us, I think we are starting to see that there are some very particular issues surrounding it for many people. There is this whole question of the government's liability in a process that it entered into, expecting 8,000 people to sign up for it, and over a period of four or five years realizing that many more people were signing up for the process. I find it almost incomprehensible that within the bureaucracy of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the people who were obviously in charge of this process let this thing get away from them in the fashion it has. Now the government wants to wash its hands of the responsibility it had throughout this whole process in order to ensure that it is fair and correct. I suppose we will have to take the bill to committee to better understand from the bureaucrats why they let this process turn into the farce that it is today.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansJackHarrisSt. John's EastJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for giving us more clarification. I think that a lot more work is going to be required on the bill. It seems like a very simple bill at first, but there are many other details that have come into it.I would like to do a historical reconnaissance here on the application process started in 2009. By 2012, 23,000 applications had been processed. As the minister told us earlier, it was originally anticipated there would be 8,000 applications.At what point did the government put up some red flags about what was going on with this process, with the way it was being done, and the fact that probably over three times the anticipated number of applications had been received? When did the government start to recognize what was going on here?C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to a bill, which, as I mentioned earlier, on first reading seems very simple and straightforward but reveals quite a bit about what the government has been doing over the last number of years and its failure to act correctly in this matter.Even when the parliamentary secretary answered my question, it is clear that he chose to ignore the fact that in the first period of time the number of applicants were three times over what was originally anticipated. He only talked about the last four months of the program, where the number went over by 45,000 applicants. How does government work when the process it is entering into with the expectation of 8,000 applicants blossoms to 24,000 applicants? The government simply seems to ignore that fact. Only when the second phase of the application process came in, with 45,000 applications being put on the table, did the government wake up and realize it had some issues with what it was trying to do. What a careless way to run a government. How careless the government is with its business with the first nations people of this country.I want to get that point in because it was left undone by the parliamentary secretary in his comments in answer to my first question. What we have is an interesting bill. There is a problem with the huge application process for registration for joining the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation membership order. In my own home community, membership lists of first nations, of Métis people, are very complex issues, and that is when we are dealing with 1,000 people. When we are dealing with 500 people, the complicated nature of these membership applications is quite clear. The government has known for 40 years that this is not an easy issue to deal with.When we set this thing in motion, we had a failure. Let the government admit that it created a failure with the process it put into place. The first step toward fixing it would be to admit the failure. Now a bill has come forward to fix some of the issues we are engaged with here, not to determine the nature of what has happened, but simply to find a way to reduce the government's exposure on this issue. First the Conservatives want to have a system on any of the previously accepted registrations for this band. They have gone through a process with five individuals, two from the first nations, two from the government, and one independent person, who have examined the first 23,800 applications that were made. They were accepted and put in place. The minister now wants the opportunity to take those off that list as he sees fits. Further, he does not want to have any responsibility for doing that. He wants to walk away from that clean. The minister indicated that he is worried about the taxpayers of this country being liable for the mistakes that the government made. The taxpayers are liable for the mistakes that elected representatives make on their behalf. That is part of government. That is the way the government should operate. That is the way that government has a responsibility to operate.It is interesting. When it comes to liability, we have made many international agreements over the last 20 years, through the Liberals and the Conservatives. They have guaranteed multinational companies with the right to sue the government if any of the provisions they enter into when they come into this country for investment purposes are changed through government legislation. The Liberals and the Conservatives signed agreements internationally that the government is under obligation to allow itself to be sued, and we have seen many large suits come of that to date.(1255)On one hand, the government is fine with protecting the opportunities to sue for liability on the part of multinational corporations. Now we come to the 23,800 citizens of this country, who under a due process were given registration for Mi'kmaq claims. I am not saying that all of these people would have a case for damages if they were to be taken off of the list. I am not saying they would even bother to do that. I am saying that they took the time to put the application in. They felt that they had a right to be on the list because they put their application in. They were accepted. Many of them would have made decisions about their life and their time based on the decision that was made by the tribunal about their participation in the Mi'kmaq membership order.Someone has made a decision. They may have changed their lifestyle. They may have relocated to a different community. They may have established a business in an area that could be considered reserve land in the future, with tax benefits. They might have done one of a hundred things that would have put their life in a different direction previous to the decision that was made by the registration tribunal.There it is. On one hand, we have a government that is quite willing to sign international agreements to allow multinational corporations to sue us at any time that we change a law here in Parliament, but on the other, it wants to put a law in place to make sure that Mi'kmaq people do not have the opportunity to sue it for something it has done wrong to them. What kind of logic is that? What kind of equity is that in the system? Why do citizens of this country have substandard rights compared to multinational companies?I find that the parallel between the two is indicative of the nature of the Conservative government, and the nature of our country, in some respects. We have been governed by the Liberals and the Conservatives for many years, and they have permitted this type of differentiation to go on.That is the philosophy that we are dealing with here. As with the first reading and second reading of any bill, we want to talk about what the philosophy is going forward. There it is, folks; that is what is happening here.What do the Mi'kmaq peoples think about this? The Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland was set up to try to deal with what is going on with this bill and the process of registration. It is not impressed with this legislation. I would like to quote from The Western Star, a newspaper from Atlantic Canada, about Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act. It said:While the federal government is saying the bill will be an assurance that everyone applying to become a member of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation will be treated fairly and equitably, there are concerns that the proposed legislation’s real purpose is to protect the federal government from being sued by people who feel they are not being treated fairly or equally.[Mr. Hector] Pearce is vice-chairperson of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, a group which was formed to fight for the rights of those who feel they are being wronged in the process of enrolment in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.“Once I started reading it, my blood started to boil a little bit,” said Pearce after reading the wording of Bill C-25. “We’re not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore”.Of course, not only is he concerned about the bill; he is concerned about the process that was followed earlier. Every Canadian would be a little concerned about a process that the government initiated when it thought it was going to get 8,000 applicants and then part of the way through the process that number was exceeded by 300%.(1300)One would think that the government would have taken some action to ensure that what it was doing was correct and working in a good fashion. Now that it has received 100,000 applicants, of course, it has to do something. It has been forced into it. It realizes, too, that is has created some liability for itself if it starts limiting the nature of registrations. If 100,000 people want to be registered and 23,000 people in Newfoundland have already been given membership in this band, one would have to say that maybe some of the qualifications should be changed so that more people are not put into this registration process. We are going to see a backtracking on the registration process and some new rules.We should remember that this process is subjective. The government itself said it. It said that the registration is determined by people's heritage, but also by their contribution to the community and Mi'kmaq society. That is very subjective. Throughout my time in northern Canada, I have seen membership lists that have been fought over on that basis for years and years. Those are very difficult, time-consuming, and subjective ways of determining membership.Once we get past the idea that people have the blood heritage of the Mi'kmaq in relationship with others in a similar location in the country and they have rights of membership, and we get into the area where they have to show they have been active participants in the community and the community accepts them, those things become very subjective, difficult to determine, and very likely to be the cause of some dispute, which may lead to liability. Those are things that the government ought to realize going forward. It has put itself in a position where many people are going to be disappointed with the results of this work that is going ahead right now. It has made choices, and those choices are going to come back and haunt it. What it should do, very clearly, is to reduce its liability for its mistakes and ensure it can make any choice it wants with the 23,800 people who have already been registered and the 70,000 people who have put their names forward for registration. This is a very difficult issue.New Democrats want to take this issue to committee because we want to come to some kind of understanding of what has happened. That may be part of what can be done. I am not holding my breath over this because I saw the action on Bill C-15. The government made some changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories which took away constitutionally protected parts of land claims agreements. That process is now going to court. The lesson that the government is learning is that it should take away the opportunity for first nations people to go to court over things that are inherently their right to do.Land ownership is something that people have a right to in this country, and first nations, through their processes, have a right to land and resources. What is being said is that the government is going to arbitrarily determine who has a right to that land and resources through this membership process. If we told private citizens in Canada that we were arbitrarily going to determine whether they have a right to the land and resources that they think they do, I suspect that would not sell very well to Canadians. (1305)Canadians understand that with heritage and the ownership of land through that process of one's ancestry, if it has not been legally taken away from them, they have some rights to it. This is something the government has to operate with carefully. It is taking a very strong step toward this limited liability, which is something it would never think of doing to multinational corporations that exist outside the country but is quite willing to do to the citizens of Canada. This is an interesting proposition. We will take it to committee. We will have a chance to give it a good, thorough airing, I hope. With the Conservative majorities we have had, the committee has had a tendency to slow down accepting witnesses, The committees have been abysmal in their ability to open up to have the type of examination many of these issues take. I will once again give the instance of Bill C-15, where one day was given to the people of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife to give their evidence in front of the committee.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsC-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderCompensationFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1310)[English]Nine and a half hours, Mr. Speaker. That was it. That speaks for itself in that regard. Hopefully some better heads will come together over this in committee and the bill will be given a very thorough examination.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, my reading of it is that certain people have been given membership in this Mi'kmaq first nation, and those 23,800, as indicated by the minister earlier in his conversation, will now be under some scrutiny to see whether that registration is appropriate. Those people will be judged.I am very concerned about any change to any of the processes that go forward for the 23,800 who have already been registered, and of course for the other 45,000 people who have come forward or the 70,000. I am not sure of that final figure. I would like to see them judged in a fashion similar to the one for the first 23,800. That would be fair. Quite clearly the process was not well thought out in the beginning, and because of that, we have ended up in this situation here today. What we have to take into account are the rights of the individuals involved. That is the primary order. I reference my experience in the Northwest Territories with the membership lists and viewing the process they go through. I think of the time it took for bands with 500 members to ensure that their membership lists were correct and followed a correct order. This is a very large task in front of everyone to determine that with 100,000 people. There is no question about it. I just want to make sure that the rights of those 100,000 are respected and that the rights of the 23,800, which they entered into with the government when they applied and were accepted and who have made choices based on their acceptance, are also protected.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonNikiAshtonChurchill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, in many cases, for things that come forward to us in committee, there is a process whereby the time is limited and the choices people have to invite people to speak in front of the committee are constrained. Opposition parties are only given as many committee members as the government chooses, in relation to their seats in the House of Commons. Right there, simply through that process, the government holds an ability to limit the choices of witnesses that will be in front of the committee. Since the current majority government has come into place, we have seen that happen.It is a game that is played at committee now. It is difficult. The government wants to move legislation through as quickly as possible, in many cases. Witnesses are assigned, as I say, per capita, according to the number of seats in the House. That is a very limiting factor.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingNikiAshtonChurchillJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is true. I completely agree with the member. There is one other issue, and that is if people's expectations, through the original process, were raised, and they actually changed their lives in any fashion or did something that would have put them at some degree of risk, or they relied on this for some part of their future activities and planned accordingly. That implies some degree of responsibility on the part of the government. Courts are very good at deciding responsibility. That is our system. I do not like seeing that opportunity being taken away from people to make those choices.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingJackHarrisSt. John's EastMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersQalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary repeated what he said. I did not really have a problem with anything he said. I am talking about people who over the past five years have received notification that they have membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. They may have moved to a different community. They may have reasserted their lifestyle as first nations. They may have bought houses or set up businesses. Those are the types of choices that have been made by these 23,800, and they will still be making these choices right up until the time somebody tells them they are no longer members. Until that time, they have to live their lives based on the fact that they have now been taken on as members of a first nation. Those are the types of liabilities. I do not think the government has a right to take away from individuals the right to sue government for making mistakes that they suffer for directly.C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band OrderFirst NationsGovernment billsQalipu Mi'kmaq First NationSecond readingStatus IndiansMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonNikiAshtonChurchill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would comment on what Premier McLeod said in committee about the section on the MVRMA. He said:This is federal legislation, so why would we have an open discussion in our territorial legislature? The federal institution is there for federal legislation. That's what the House of Commons is there for. That's what you are there for. We're not here to debate federal legislation. We debate our own territorial legislation.To me, this does not sound like a premier who has agreed to and has the support of his legislative assembly for the changes contemplated for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In fact, what he has said repeatedly is that we will have a commitment that will be reviewed after five years. What he says, and what has happened here, is that the territorial government has been put in a place where, if they want devolution, they will have to accept those changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In this type of negotiation between the federal and territorial government, how does it make anyone feel when we have this kind of heavy-handed action taking place?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementMackenzie ValleyNorthwest TerritoriesReport stageThomasMulcairHon.OutremontThomasMulcairHon.Outremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across, who had the opportunity to hear testimony in Yellowknife in front of the standing committee. It was overwhelming testimony about the desire to not get rid of the regional boards.He mentioned Chief Harry Deneron. Chief Deneron actually lives in a region where there is no settled land claim. Any regulatory work done in that region is done under the larger board, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, not under a regional board. In fact, it was quite clearly identified by almost everyone who dealt with the regulatory system that they wanted to settle the land claims first. They said that it was one of the major components of why they do not have success in the Dehcho region, where Chief Harry Deneron resides. I would ask my colleague if he would explain why he is using this example of a chief who is in region that does not have a regional board, that serves under a central board, as the example of why he should get rid of the regional boards.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsInuvialuit Water BoardLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Labrador for her discourse this morning. It was demonstrated at the hearings in Yellowknife that she actually listens to people and hears what they are saying. An important part of the work that we do in Parliament is to actually hear what the citizens of this country say. Quite clearly, in those hearings in Yellowknife, there was an overwhelming desire for people to leave the regional boards alone.We have not put forward an amendment to delete all the sections within the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I think we all recognize that the federal government, in giving more powers to the territories, has a responsibility to hold on to some, and it has increased, in many ways, its powers within the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.Does my colleague think that the people, the citizens of the north, the first nations, would be satisfied with these amendments? Would they be completely satisfied if the regional boards were put forward as the way to go in the future?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageYvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill, a bill that affects my life, the life of my children, the life of my grandchildren, and the lives of all my friends and relatives who live in the Northwest Territories. The bill is part of our life, and we are the only ones who really are affected by the bill. The bill is for us. Our point of view is very important.I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for standing and speaking to the bill at what all have said in the House is a critical moment in the constitutional development of Canada. I am very pleased that he has taken the time to do that.Devolution is well supported in the Northwest Territories. We do not have to argue about that. We do not have to work very hard on that section of the bill. We did get one or two amendments that help a little bit and make this bill more equitable throughout the three territories. The contentious part is the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There is a clear consensus that the one thing that is not appropriate is the change from the regional boards to a superboard. It is inappropriate, counterproductive, divisive, and destabilizing, all the things that we do not want to have happen in the Northwest Territories. These are things that go much beyond the addition of a few extra people sitting on boards that decide the future of the Northwest Territories. This has massive consequences to all.Our amendment today to restore regional boards is a matter that will strengthen Bill C-15. It will strengthen devolution. It will ensure stability. It truly is representative of the wishes of the people in the Northwest Territories. I urge the government to support this amendment. This amendment can only help to create a bill that will heap praise on the government's shoulders. By supporting the amendment, the government will show its humanity and its desire to do the right thing.I want to review how we got here, as presented in testimony. The first step in that was with the McCrank report. When Mr. McCrank stood in front of the committee, he admitted that the idea of a superboard was his idea. There was no one in the Northwest Territories who had suggested that to him. That idea came from him, from an Alberta person who ran the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Of course he thought that the structure should be similar to the one in Alberta, but that is not what we have set out to do in the Northwest Territories. We have set out to have regional governments and aboriginal governments, whether they are Inuvialuit—who are keeping their regional boards, by the way—or the Sahtu, the Tlicho, and the Gwich'in, who have made agreements.My colleague across talked about contemplation of a single board within the land claims. Contemplation does not mean agreement. Contemplation does not mean that the government can go ahead without full negotiation to change a land claim just because something is contemplated within an agreement.After the McCrank, report the government hired Mr. John Pollard to be its chief federal negotiator. It is interesting that the testimony from the Tlicho indicated that in 2011 they gave the government a protocol framework for negotiating changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They were willing to work with the government to do the right thing, to make changes, to make the system more efficient. They set out a protocol. That protocol was shelved. In testimony, Mr. Pollard admitted that it was just taken as information. Nothing was done with it. As a result, governments and Mr. Pollard held many meetings, but they were not in any framework that had been agreed upon by the two elements of the land claims, the first nations who have treaty rights and treaty responsibilities to their citizens and the Government of Canada representing the crown. There was no agreement on how to negotiate changes to these land claims.(1100)That is where the government falls flat on its face.In the fall of this year, departmental officials then presented bills to the first nations. They presented a separate bill for devolution and a separate bill for the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. They were never taken together.Bertha Rabesca Zoe, legal counsel for the Tlicho government, stated:In that October session I asked the federal officials who were there doing the presentation whether those bills would be bundled as an omnibus bill, and we were never given a response....Mr. Daryn Leas, legal counsel for the Sahtu, stated:Never once were the federal devolution negotiators able to provide any substance or details about the Mackenzie Valley legislation in the proposed amendments.That is the state of the consultation that was taking place on this act, Bill C-15.The process on devolution has been going on for 20 years. The problem we had with devolution was getting first nations governments on side. Premier McLeod accomplished that for devolution. We have heard the testimony of Premier McLeod. He did not involve the first nations in discussions about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. He said that was not their business. Once again those regulation issues were designed to be kept separate.Today, we have put forward an amendment to bring peace to this issue. Regional boards are working fine today. I quote Mr. Tom Hoefer, executive director of the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, who stated:We recognize that the aboriginal community is validly concerned by the loss of the existing regional panels. You should know that a number of industry members, especially those who have developed close working relationships with the regional boards, have likewise expressed reservations. Does that sound like industry is offside on the regional boards? It does not.How does this uncertainty serve anyone's purpose? We are likely to be caught up in litigation. We are likely to have a new government in a year and a half. Would members not agree? We will have to fix these mistakes that have been made here, because the Conservatives' attitude of ignoring the wishes of the people will eventually catch up to them, and they will be thrown out of office.I would say to the Conservatives that they should do their job, listen to people, hear what they have to say, and hear what the people in the Northwest Territories have to say about the laws that affect only us, the laws with respect to how we want to develop.We are asking the Conservatives to listen to us and hear us. Then, perhaps, if they follow that lesson with us, they may follow it with others and they may find that their political careers can be extended.The north is a great adventure. I have been part of it my whole life. In the end, we will do the right thing. In the end, we will create a territory with a unique and powerful system of government. The Conservatives should join us in doing that. This is a simple amendment that does not change much at all but represents so much to us.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsInuvialuit Water BoardLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageYvonneJonesLabradorMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, those comments are not really worthy of my colleague across the way, who has shown himself to be quite a reasonable fellow most of the time. My colleague knows that is the only thing we are standing up on today. We are saying that if this amendment goes through, we would be very willing and happy to give the Conservative government accolades for what it is doing with this. This is the area of dispute.When the territorial premier spoke about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, he said it was not his responsibility to inform anyone about the federal legislation. The federal legislation, being the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, was never discussed at the territorial legislative assembly. It was never given air. Therefore, when my colleague suggests that the territorial premier has any mandate to speak about that legislation, quite clearly he said he does not have a mandate to speak about it.The expression of this affair was what happened in Yellowknife in front of the standing committee, and the member knows very well that the people interested in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act spoke up very strongly and said their piece. I hope he will continue to listen to them.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesReport stageMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, the testimony in front of the committee was that through the regional boards, those three organizations were well represented and those regional boards had delivered environmental regulations in a very effective fashion. That was backed up by the 2010 NWT environmental audit. Those boards were working, and the people had capacity within their own regions to understand the issues surrounding development. That is absolutely the most important thing that can happen for people in a region: to understand what is going on with the development. When it is clearly expressed and understood by people they trust, that will lead to the efficient development of resources, and that is the case. It is not going to happen if they do not have that trust.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageYvonneJonesLabradorJasbirSandhuSurrey North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003 there were larger numbers on the table from the federal government at the time. Devolution was proceeding at that time with a lot more authority and control. There were larger sums of money being offered for the A-base funding. This whole thing fell apart because the first nations were not on board with the territorial government at the time for devolution.What we have now is a situation where first nations are on board, and we are taking away one of the essential elements they have within their regional claims. Does that make sense you?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityFirst NationsGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesReport stageMurrayRankinVictoriaBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague because the support and discussion that has taken place in this House is very valuable to the people in the north right now. It will be a benchmark for the future in how we can deal with some of the issues that would be caused by Bill C-15.If things had gone differently in the early 1990s, we might have had a single comprehensive claim for the whole Northwest Territories. However, at that time, the federal government made the choice not to proceed with that, and it encouraged the regional claims to develop. We have now been in a process of developing strong regional aboriginal governments throughout the Northwest Territories. One of the fine examples is Inuvialuit, who still, and will continue to, retain its regional boards in charge of its territory.How does my colleague think that this change being proposed could cause an imbalance in the system in the Northwest Territories?We have gone forward with regional boards. We still have one regional board. However, the proposed system would very much be out of balance.Aboriginal land claimsC-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de FucaRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de Fuca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I want to talk about how the Conservatives have hung their hats on the words in these three land claims agreements that the contemplation of a larger board means that these regional boards would be taken up. Land claims are negotiated between two parties. They are between the people who hold the treaty with the Crown and the federal government, which represents the Crown. If I had an agreement that I am contemplating buying someone's vehicle, would I not think that before I bought the vehicle, the price would have to be worked out between the parties? This is the problem right now. It is the failing in the Conservatives' logic in their position on taking away the regional boards. They say that because the land claims say that we can contemplate this, it means we have the authority to put it in place without the agreement of the other negotiating party. How does that sound to the member?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsInuvialuit Water BoardLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesRegional officesReport stageAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-FortinAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-Fortin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to list a number of names. One is NICO mine; one is Dominion Diamond mines; one is Diavik mine; one is Gahcho Kue mine. All of these mines exist in the Tlicho region. If the Tlicho go to litigation over the regional boards, licensing of those mines would be put in jeopardy.Right now, worldwide, mines are fighting for capital costs. What happens when the market realizes that the current government has upset the process in one of the most prosperous areas of the country right now for mining? What are these people doing? Why are doing this stupidity at this time?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementMining industryNorthwest TerritoriesReport stageMalcolmAllenWellandMalcolmAllenWelland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodForeign InvestmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric on Arctic sovereignty, the Conservative government has done little to protect Canada's northern resources from foreign interests.The largest offshore exploration leaseholder in the Beaufort Sea is a small two-person British company called Franklin Petroleum. Under the current rules, these leases could be transferred to anyone, to any country, at any time, without the involvement of Canada in approving the transfer.Why has the Prime Minister not closed this loophole?Canadian Arctic sovereigntyForeign investments in CanadaNorthern CanadaOral questionsAndrewSaxtonNorth VancouverJoeOliverHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of vouching, there were 100,000 in the last election. That works out to less than 350 per riding. Quite clearly, as portrayed here, the evidence was that the discrepancies found in the one test riding were not strong enough to stand up in the Supreme Court. We are going to take 100,000 people out of the election system. What does my colleague think about that?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsSecond readingVoter identificationVouchersJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the whole process that I have seen in the years I have been in Parliament. First, we started with this photo ID bill in 2007. Through that, many people in my riding lost their ability to vote. That happened. In Nunavut, it was an epidemic. Now, we are getting to a point where we would take away the vouchers.It is really an insane situation for people in rural communities, where the returning officer will know the people coming into the voting booth, but will not allow them to vote because they do not have the proper identification papers, and now they would not be able to use someone else to vouch for them.How would this work for my constituents? What is the government doing to the people in rural and remote locations across the country? They are people who have a right to vote in this country. Why is the government doing this to them?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsRemote communitiesRural communitiesSecond readingVoter identificationTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across for his thoughtful presentation on the bill. My concern is to get people out to vote. That should be the primary concern for us all.With the changes proposed by the bill, the Chief Electoral Officer would not be allowed to promote voting in this country. We would move away from a voucher system, which worked for 100,000 people in the last election. There would be changes made to the voter identification system of 2007. We would have a situation of declining voters in our system.Why does the hon. member think that reducing the number of people voting would be a good thing for Canadians?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsSecond readingVoter turnoutJamesRajotteEdmonton—LeducJamesRajotteEdmonton—Leduc//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodDemocratic ReformInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2002, Conservatives supported the NDP's call to make financial documents from political parties available upon request. They even agreed to our motion to make this happen.Currently, while local candidates must make every last receipt and claim public, which is good, political parties only have to release summaries. Why do Conservatives not want Canadians to see spending details in their campaigns?C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElection returnsElectoral systemInformation disseminationOral questionsPolitical partiesPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Nepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been in the House as long as I and went through this in 2006 through the debate on the photo ID bill. I do not remember the particular title that the Conservatives gave the legislation back then, so I will characterize it as that.Through that process a problem was identified with respect to voting, and that problem was not well articulated by the Conservatives. It does not bear up under the examination of ridings, such as we heard from my colleague about Trinity—Spadina.What is the problem we are dealing with here by taking away another form of identification for people? Does my colleague still hold to the position that his party took at that time, that the requirements of fraud were so onerous that we needed to put restrictions and conditions on people going into a voting booth? Does he still hold to the position that we have actually improved Canadians' ability to vote over these last eight years of Conservative management, or have we created more problems for people who want to vote?Allegations of fraud and fraudC-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsSecond readingVoter identificationScottSimmsBonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—WindsorScottSimmsBonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersNorthwest Territories Devolution ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the aboriginal affairs committee held hearings in Yellowknife on Bill C-15, which combines devolution with the elimination of regional land and water boards.A clear message from the hearings was that there is a strong opposition to the Conservative plan to shut down these regional boards.These boards give a local voice to development decisions, which is a system that works. They were created through constitutionally protected land claims agreements. Even the chamber of mines said they have a good working relationship with the local boards.The aboriginal governments of the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho have pledged that they will use every avenue available to fight these changes, meaning greater delays for future development.“Canada has returned to the old colonial ways of thinking they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. This is not the constitutional promise made in the Tlicho agreement,” said Tlicho Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesStatements by MembersRobAndersCalgary WestEveAdamsMississauga—Brampton South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation on Bill C-15. I listened to what he had to say with a great deal of interest.The bill is really two bills that have been brought together. I have asked the minister in the past if he could put them forward as separate bills so the people of the north could truly debate them in a fashion that would work for them, but that is not the case.One of the aspects of the agreement that was made between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government was for a review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act after five years. This agreement is not carried forward in any of the legislation. It is not in a devolution implementation bill. It is not within the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. How can the people of the north be sure that with future governments we will get a proper review of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which, in the form it is presented in the bill, would give the minister complete control over the terms and conditions of resource development in the Northwest Territories going forward? How can we be sure that this review will take place?Could the minister give us some assurances that, although it is not in the legislation but it was in the agreement, this review will be wholeheartedly taken on by the government?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDividing a billDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementLegislative reviewMackenzie ValleyMackenzie Valley Resource Management ActNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong northerner, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-15, the devolution implementation bill. I would first like to congratulate the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, his cabinet ministers and the staff for the hard work they have put in on this file. That extends back through the time of the Northwest Territories to many other people who have dedicated their service in building a territory with political rights that are equivalent to those in other parts of Canada.Bill C-15 has two very significant and different parts. One makes changes to the Northwest Territories Act, an act that is virtually the constitution of the Northwest Territories. All actions there fall under the Northwest Territories Act. Other laws are being changed to implement the devolution agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories.The second part brings in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, primarily doing away with the regional land and water boards created through land claims agreements with the first nations, replacing them with a single super board.There are other changes in the act, and I will speak to those as I go along. They are very significant changes that, apart from what the minister has said, will leave even stronger powers for the minister over resource development in the Northwest Territories. It is quite clearly the case.We in the New Democratic Party support devolution. We see this as a step forward for the Northwest Territories in some respects, and we will look to the bill going to committee. We will look to the opportunity to put forward amendments that may better serve the people of the Northwest Territories.The devolution part of the bill partially realizes the dream northerners have had for over 50 years: taking more authority over their lives from bureaucrats in Ottawa. I have lived that life and I know what that life is. The Carruthers Commission in 1966 moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats there, but that was what we could call “second-stage colonialism”. We brought the federal government into the Northwest Territories and to the greatest extent it ruled the north from the north, rather than from Ottawa.The federally appointed Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was the speaker, premier and lieutenant governor, all rolled into one, up until 1975. In 1975, we had our first elected territorial council of 15 members. This includes the territory known as Nunavut now, under one roof.Before that a mixture of people elected and appointed by the federal government provided governance. Executive powers still lay with the commissioner, assisted by a deputy and an assistant commissioner.With the appointment of John Parker in 1979, the move began away from an executive commissioner toward a more ceremonial role as lieutenant governor. I will get back to that point, because it is a point I want to bring up in this speech.In the late eighties, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories, which has handled all of those as well as can be and deserves great praise for providing services to people across a vast territory with limited resources.We have taken on education, social services, highways, airport administration and a number of the roles that would be classified as provincial. That was never satisfactory to the north, as after the nineties when we had constitutional development conferences in the north, where we talked about our future and what direction we would take, I think we all felt that we wanted to be a unique place in Canada. We wanted full respect for aboriginal governments. We wanted partnerships between aboriginal governments and public governments so that we would have a territory that would truly represent the people, the history and the real claim that first nations have to the land and resources of the north. That is a dream that is still held by most northerners.(1600)There were devolution efforts in the early part of 2000, with the Liberals. The deal was virtually the same as this. Perhaps they were offering a little better money, at the time, and I think a little more control over development. That deal was actually rejected by the parties, in the end, because there was not a common agreement.I think one of the great accomplishments of Premier McLeod, with the devolution file, has been to bring many of the first nations on board. Premier McLeod himself is of aboriginal descent and has a great deal of respect among first nation peoples—among all of us in the north—for his strength and his fairness. I think that is something that has helped the devolution file tremendously.The MVRMA part of the bill, however, would implement the Conservative desire to move forward with more rapid resource development in the Northwest Territories. That is what we see here. That is the purpose of this. This is the great trade-off that has been made with this bill—the trade-off that we all have been put under.When I got a comprehensive audit of people's attitudes toward changes in the MVRMA done by outside consultants a year and a half ago, it was pretty clear that most people in the Northwest Territories were not thinking that the regulatory system needed more than some very straightforward tweaking.One thing we all did agree with was that the land use plans, which are part of the MVRMA, needed to be completed, including McCrank. Everybody agreed with that. The current government has not moved very fast to make that happen, which was one of the biggest problems we had in the regulatory system.For more than 20 years, the aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories have hung their hat on having some say and control over the resource development process on lands and waters. They have tied this to the MVRMA with their duly developed land claims agreements with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho governments.These people have agreed to regional boards. They have supported regional boards. Yes, there are provisions that perhaps one single board could be made, but what we have found in the Northwest Territories is that regional boards actually provide a useful and necessary function within the Northwest Territories to, clearly, provide that vision that we talked about earlier, the vision of a territory that had balance between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments.What we would see with this bill is that particular structure would changed to a single board. It might be possible to change it back later. That is very much a question that is up in the air now.However, certainly, an NDP government would go back to take a look at this. We would go back to see whether this was appropriate for the development of the Northwest Territories according to how the people see their development taking place.The MVRMA remains a federal legislation, but it is an essential part of how the balance of the Northwest Territories is developing.Let us talk about the changes to the NWT Act for devolution. The question here is whether we are moving to more province-like powers. Yes, in the administration of environment and the administration of land, we are. In the enforcement of those provisions, yes, we are. Those are things that are valuable. I thank all of those involved in pushing those forward for the people of the Northwest Territories.However, there are other things that trouble us in the bill, where we look for amendments, perhaps. When it comes to directions to the commissioner, I mentioned the commissioner was moving more to the state of a lieutenant-governor ceremonial position. This bill would draw him back into the fold of the federal government. Bill C-15, clause 4, states:The Commissioner must act in accordance with any written instructions given to him or her by the Governor in Council or the Minister.This is stronger language than in the current NWT Act. The Yukon Act contains no comparable sections, and in Nunavut these instructions are made public through tabling in the Legislative Assembly. (1605)What do we see here, in this particular section of the devolution act? We actually see more control being applied through the commissioner's office. Strengthening the federal control of the NWT, when combined with the provision of section 29 that adds the power of the minister to order the commissioner to withhold assent to bills that are passed in the Legislative Assembly, the commissioner, under the instruction of the minister, can withhold assent to those bills, and has up to a year to do it. What we see there is fairly strong control over any changes that could be made in the Northwest Territories in the years to come with different governments there that may have agendas different those of the present government or any other government.Regarding borrowing, this bill would continue the process whereby Ottawa sets the amount of debt the NWT can acquire. NWT debt is not a burden on Canada. This is an outdated and colonial practice that inhibits our development by not allowing us to invest in things like hydroelectric generation capacity. We have to go to the federal government, cap in hand, and ask it to please give us a little more borrowing power and to possibly let us do something that we know is good for our people. I put a bill forward in the last Parliament. This issue has been very well discussed and is very well understood. The opposition at the time voted unanimously, and we passed that bill through second reading. Only the Conservatives wanted to limit the borrowing capacity of our government.What is it in like in the provinces? The federal government may not give direction to a provincial lieutenant governor. All natural resources are completely under the control of the provinces, with no Ottawa interference. There is no control over borrowing. The lieutenant governors cannot be directed to not assent to bills. These are things that are in the devolution agreement. We see that the devolution agreement would give us more in certain areas but would put reins on us in other areas. That would limit our capacity, unlike other Canadians. These things can be changed by amendments, and I encourage the government to support some amendments that would give us more flexibility under this act.Let us move on to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This measure would eliminate regional boards created through the land use process. It would replace them with one superboard with only 11 members. This bill also would also give the minister the right, in any part of this bill and for any of the boards that will exist in the Northwest Territories, to provide binding policy decisions to those boards. In other words, the minister could tell the board the way it will judge actions.There is no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision. That would make sense. It would make sense that the people who are taking care of the environment and the land would have some influence over the policy decisions that are going forward to the boards that make decisions about development. What would be wrong with providing that consultation to the Government of the Northwest Territories? Again, with a simple amendment we could put that in place. If the Conservatives want to listen, that is fine. There have been environmental audits done in the Northwest Territories. The main problem with our regulatory system, according to these independent environmental audits that were done in 2010, was that foot-dragging by Ottawa on appointments and on approvals of developments was the biggest impediment to resource development in the Northwest Territories. Now we would have a system whereby one government would control some things and the other government can have a say over everything when it comes to resource development. This is a difficult situation. This is going to lead to conflicts.(1610)We need one government in charge of making decisions, and that should be the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with and working together with the first nations, who have a right to land and resources in the Northwest Territories and who we want to have as complete partners in the development of the Northwest Territories. This is a goal that we all have. It is a goal that northerners have in the Northwest Territories. We are not interested in matching up to Alberta. We do not want Alberta in the Northwest Territories. That is not what we are here for. We want our own government, under our own rules, with our own relationships, with the groups that make up the north and have lived there for hundreds and thousands of years and have done very well with that. There is strong opposition among the first nations to the changes to the MVRMA. The Gwich'in Tribal Council made a unanimous decision to reject the changes at a meeting held in Inuvik by community leadership representing all the Gwich'in communities. These are the words of Gwich'in Tribal Council president Robert Alexie. He said: “My people have spoken, and what Canada is proposing is clearly unacceptable”. The Tlicho Government is opposed. Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus has said:There's no need to change the Wek'èezhli Land and Water Board. There's nothing wrong with it. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's working very well. Why fix something that is not broken?With regard to appointments, why is the minister holding on tightly to all the appointments to all these boards? Why is he saying that a nomination from the Government of the Northwest Territories to any of these boards must meet his approval? Why do aboriginal governments that make nominations to these boards need the minister's approval? How is that devolution? How is that taking charge of our own affairs, when nominations can be rejected outright? When it comes to the chairs of the new superboard, the minister only has to consult on appointing a chair. The minister's man will be in Yellowknife as head of the superboard. He will be getting instructions, binding policy direction, from the minister about how things develop in the Northwest Territories. How does that represent true devolution? I do not know if anyone across the way understands, but if they go talk to their provincial counterparts, they may understand what provincial-like powers actually are. The minister said the Yukon is doing extremely well with environmental assessments. Yukon actually makes decisions for itself. The Yukon first nations make appointments to their boards. The Yukon is doing it by itself. Bill C-15 does not permit us to do the same things that the Yukon is doing.I have been through two phases of colonialism in my life. The first was when the federal government in Ottawa simply sent representatives up to govern us. I was a student in school, and different kids would come from Ottawa because their parents would be sent up there for a couple years to do northern duty. I was great friends with people from Ottawa and with their children, but they were not northerners. That was phase one.Phase two was when the government came to the north. We have made remarkable progress in that time. We have done a lot with our territory. It is a great territory, one that I am absolutely proud to represent here in the House of Commons every day. I love the place. I want it to grow. I want to be a Canadian just like everyone else, but what we have here is only the third stage in colonialism. It is the stage when we take care of most things on the ground, but the decisions are in Ottawa. That is where we are at. We will work with the government as much as we can, but in the end, we know that our job as New Democrats will be to give the people of the north a real say, a say that is equivalent to that of other Canadians in how they manage their affairs. Aboriginal peoplesBorrowing authorityC-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityFirst NationsGovernanceGovernment billsLand managementMackenzie ValleyMackenzie Valley Resource Management ActNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesPolitical influencePolitical powerPublic consultationSecond readingBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague actually gave me a chance to respond to what the minister said about me. We did a study recently in which we looked at income tax returns over the last 10 years across the north as one part of the study. In that study, we noticed that in communities like Lutselk'e, which has been virtually surrounded by new diamond mines in the last 10 years, when we picked a $30,000 cap for family income, the rate of poverty among families went from 30% to 40%. This is during a time when our GDP per capita, averaged over 10 years, had the highest growth rate of any jurisdiction in the country.We saw that even in close proximity, communities that have economic benefit agreements with the diamond mines still had a high degree of poverty. In fact, it was increasing. Economic development is very good for those who are working for mining companies and have jobs in those fields, but it raises the cost of living enormously and leaves many people behind. That is why we need a very broad approach to resource development, one that comes from the people of the Northwest Territories who have seen the results over the last 10 years and want to improve on them. With this type of legislation, with these changes to the MVRMA, the minister in Ottawa will be determining the terms and conditions of development, and we will not have the chance to try to make a difference so that resource developments actually work for us.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityEconomic developmentGovernment billsGross domestic productLand managementNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingMarkStrahlChilliwack—Fraser CanyonYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the question quite honestly, because I think that is important in the House.In September, I wrote to the minister and asked him to bring these two bills forward as separate bills, because there is a great disagreement in the Northwest Territories between the two bills. With the devolution implementation bill, I think there is a great deal of support. I commended the premier on getting that support from first nations. That is how we work together. That is excellent. However, with the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, that is something that causes a great deal of concern for aboriginal groups across the north.What we have ended up with is an omnibus bill. I am conflicted about the support I am giving to the bill because it does not represent what I feel is adequate on the Mackenzie Valley resource management side. I can live with the changes encompassed in the devolution implementation bill, because generally, they add a little to what is going on in the north.That is the conflict that we have. We want progress. We will take the progress we can get in the north. First nations, in many cases, do not view this as progress, with respect to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityFirst NationsGovernment billsLand managementMackenzie ValleyNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingYvonneJonesLabradorHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—Émard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I look on the debate in the House of Commons as extremely important for the people of the Northwest Territories, because as with my private member's bill on the borrowing limit, I did influence other people and other parties to support the north.There may be another government here in a couple of years. What I would really love for people to understand is that we are not finished with devolution or evolution in the Northwest Territories towards political status comparable to other Canadians.We have not finished with that yet. There is more work to be done. Although the bill comes now, we hope that in the years to come other sensitive and thoughtful people in Canada will recognize that we have a right to full political status, and that they will support everything that is needed to make the Northwest Territories a unique, strong, democratic place.We do not want to lose sight of that. We do not want to lose sight for our first nations, who we have worked together with for many years to build this territory, this place where all first nations can feel at home, in charge, empowered and strengthened in their communities, in their regions. That is so vital to what we do in the Northwest Territories. This is unlike many places in Canada. I do not want to see that change.We can debate this for some time, see some amendments come forward and see some understanding about how the north should move ahead. This would all be valuable to us. I appeal to all members to take a look at what is going on here. This is an important issue. As a Canadian, stand up for northerners. Even if you do not want to see too much progress right now, understand what the issues are and why, in the end, we in the north should have equal status to all of you around this room.C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesPolitical powerSecond readingHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—ÉmardBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthwest Territories Devolution Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Labrador. I know how much her territory in her province resembles the Northwest Territories with isolated communities and communities that are, in many cases, put under decisions that are not really coming from the people around them but from St. John's or some other area.Could the hon. member comment on how she thinks the people of Labrador, who already have to deal with an extension to St. John's, would feel about having all the decisions regarding resource development finally approved by a minister in Ottawa?C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulationsDownload responsibilityGovernment billsLand managementNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingYvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments the member for Newton—North Delta made about the single aspect that is entailed in the bill.What does that make her think about the current government? Is the government, after seven years in power, so completely out of ideas that it takes up the time of Parliament and the discussion of such an important part of the federal government's responsibility--that is, dealing with the criminal justice institution--by simply codifying one practice that is already in place? Does this show that the government is completely out of ideas and is simply just putting forward slogans to appeal to some part of the Canadian population?C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseGovernment billsSecond readingJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, this subject is one which my colleague in his speech has dealt with incredibly well because when we look at the results of the Conservative program over the last number of years in the interdiction of drugs in prisons, it has been very unsuccessful.Does my colleague want to take that argument further into how those funds could better have been put into programs that would lead to rehabilitation, that would lead to a decline in drug and hard drug use in prisons?C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseDrug addiction treatmentGovernment billsSecond readingRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de FucaRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de Fuca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment seems to be the only northerner who does not understand climate change. As she took her seat at the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, a European report found, “Canada still shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries”. Meanwhile, the minister continues to mouth empty platitudes about how hard the Conservatives are working on climate change. However, Environment Canada's analysis shows Canada fell further behind in meeting its 2020 targets. While the minister fiddles, her constituents and mine are suffering. Inuit elders, hunters and others have told the Nunavut environment department that sea ice conditions have changed, there is more rain with snow later in the year, the stability of the permafrost is changing and traditional Inuit seasons have changed drastically.When it comes to climate change, the minister is only willing to mouth PMO talking points, when she should be working for northerners.Climate change and global warmingStatements by MembersJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, this summer the Mackenzie Valley Review Board gave conditional approval for cleanup plans for the old Giant Mine. The Conservative's response has been to reject recommendations on independent reviews, on health and on citizen input.Giant Mine is the poster child for why we need strong environmental regulations. Buried underground are 237,000 tonnes of arsenic. Why is the minister refusing to take all measures to ensure this poison is never released?ArsenicContaminated sitesEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineOral questionsTailings pondsJeffWatsonEssexBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, looking into the situation is not good enough.The federal government has clear responsibility over the protection of fisheries and northern and transboundary waters. We do not want to wait for Alberta. The disaster is already impacting communities downstream from the site of the spill. Monitoring the situation is not good enough.When will enforcement action be carried out by the government? What is Environment Canada doing to protect the people in the Mackenzie Basin?CoalHazardous material spillsMining industryOral questionsPolluter-pay principleRegulationTar sandsWater qualityWater resourcesAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, on October 31, a tailings pond dike at the former Obed Mountain coal mine near Hinton, Alberta, failed, releasing one billion litres of toxic coal slurry into the Athabasca River. The resulting toxic plume is travelling north and is expected to cross into the Northwest Territories within two weeks. As protection of transboundary and northern waterways is a federal jurisdiction, what is Environment Canada doing to protect northern Canadians from this toxic spill?Athabasca RiverDepartment of the EnvironmentHazardous material spillsInland watersOral questionsPublic healthTailings pondsWater qualityChrisAlexanderHon.Ajax—PickeringColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNavigable Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition from the residents of Fort Smith, Yellowknife, and other locations in the Northwest Territories. They call on Parliament to quickly pass Bill C-529, an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act in relation to Slave River. It is a bill that would protect the Slave River under the Navigable Water Protection Act, a river that has been used for navigation for hundreds of years.Without this protection, the Slave River could be dammed or otherwise blocked without requiring any federal government intervention.Inland watersPetition 412-0452RiversSlave RiverSeanCaseyCharlottetownBruceHyerThunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Keystone XL Pipeline]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate this topic. I live downstream from the oil sands in the Northwest Territories. We have great concerns about those oil sands.I will start with a little history. In 2007, the oil sands industry in Alberta was looking at massive investment in upgraders. What happened to change that? In Texas, the government of the day in the United States decided that Venezuelan heavy oil coming from the Chavez regime was not appropriate. The Chavez regime agreed with that and we saw the stifling of heavy oil to the Texas refineries. That changed the situation in 2007.The upgraders then were to be replaced with the heavy oil upgraders in Texas, and the multinationals that ran the Alberta oil industry had no consideration at all for Canada only their bottom line and their corporations, which is what they can only look at, decided to go to Texas. The bitumen could be put into the heavy oil upgraders there.They would not have to invest $60 million to $100 million over 20 or 30 years to build upgraders, modern upgraders that could provide the best possible service in upgrading our bitumen. They would not have to do that in Alberta. They would not have to make that decision. They would not have to invest that money, but they needed to get a pipeline. They wanted to get a pipeline down to Texas where they could use those heavy oil upgraders, which would increase their profits. They did not really have a reason to support Canadian industry, to support Canadian workers or to support the Alberta economy. In fact, if they used these heavy oil upgraders, that could open up more investment than they could put into the oil sands, so they could produce more of it and ramp up the speed by which they developed this resource, because they were just taking it out of the ground and shipping it somewhere else. They could start moving more and more projects.How does that make the people in our region feel? When we talk to the people in Fort Chipewyan, the people in Fort MacKay or talk to any of the people who actually live in that region, like myself, in Fort Smith, we do not like it. We want orderly development. We do not want the oil sands to blow up to three times its size in the next decade and a half because we are simply taking the oil out of the ground and shipping it out of the country. If we were building the upgraders in Canada, there would be plenty of jobs and economic development for Alberta. This would work. This would mean more orderly development of the oil sands. Instead, what do we have? We have the wild west going. The Jackpine project has just been approved. What did the Environmental Assessment Board say about the Jackpine project? It would have significant impact on the environment. However, for economic reasons, it was allowed to go ahead anyhow. It was needed for the economy. Because raw bitumen was just being shipped out, these plants had to be built that take it out of the ground and get it out of the country. What kind of process is that for Canada?Who are the big promoters of this project in the United States? The guys who control the petcoke industry, the Koch brothers. The biggest climate change deniers in the world love this product. They love to get the petcoke into the states where they send that dirty product that comes out of the upgrading using the coking process, which is a process that actually should not be the main process right now for upgrading, but I will get into that a little later. They take that petcoke and sell it to China, the dirtiest product to put into a coal-fired plant the world has ever seen. That is what is done with it. That is what we end up supporting with our Canadian Keystone pipeline.The Koch brothers were pretty careful at the beginning. They would not admit any involvement with Keystone. They did not want to tie any of their processes, but it has been proved now, pretty conclusively, that these guys are doing it for their purposes.(1255)This is what Canada is supporting right now. The dirtiest product is going to go from the United States to China and to other countries to be burned in their coal-fired plants.Keystone XL would produce about 15,000 tonnes of petcoke a day from its process. What can we do differently? We could build upgraders in Canada. When they switched to coking from hydrogen addition, it was because the price of natural gas went through the roof at the beginning of the last decade. Where is the price of natural gas now? It is down there. We are building LNG terminals to ship the natural gas out of the country when we could be using it in upgraders in Alberta to upgrade the bitumen in an environmentally reasonable fashion, reasonable but not perfect. Instead, we are going to build the Keystone pipeline, ship it all down, put it in the old beat-up refineries along the Texas coast that have handled Venezuelan heavy crude for the last 40 years. It will stick it in there, it will process it there and it will take the petcoke and ship it to China. How does that fit with Canada's image in the world? What does that make Canada? More of a pariah? Is this what the Conservative government wants: everyone in the world looking at Canada as a purveyor of ill-gotten environmentally unfriendly good? Is that the Conservative government's plan for Canada's economy? The Conservatives have to shake their heads a little. They have to recognize that Canada has a place in the world. We are not alone in the world. We are not immune to the opinions of the rest of the world. We live off the opinions of the rest of the world through trade. If we do proper trade, people will continue to work with us.I sat on a board that dealt with environmental issues on rivers. The Al-Pac pulp mill on the Athabasca River, through public pressure, was forced to increase its environmental capacity before it was built. The executives of that company told me five years later that it was the best thing that ever happened. They could sell their pulp anywhere in the world as a high premium, environmentally correct product. It was the best thing that ever happened to them.What are we doing with our oil sands that are going to be around for 150 years? What kind of reputation are we building for this product that we want to sell to the rest of the world for decades to come? We are doing nothing. We are just trying to get it out of the ground as fast as possible. Mine it and ship is the viewpoint right now in this industry. We could move in another direction. We could set up the most modern upgraders in the world using the excess natural gas we have for hydrogen addition. We could produce an industry that had a lot more environmental aspects to it. We would also then have synthetic oil, which we could send anywhere in the world. Synthetic oil created out of bitumen can go into any refinery in the world.Rather than being a hostage to the Texas coast where, in a few years, perhaps Venezuela will be back to being a friend of the United States and then, all of a sudden, we would be competing with heavy oil coming by tankard loads from Venezuela to the same refineries. All of a sudden, the value of the bitumen would start to drop because there would be competition for the same upgrading.I appreciate that I have one minute left, but if we look at it environmentally, our country has about one minute left. We have moved so quickly to a position in this world where we are simply not accepted anymore. We are not accepted as being good citizens of the world. This is a tragedy that goes on the backs of all those people sitting across there. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister are the guys responsible for the mess we are in today. They sit there and grin and pretend that this is all just going to pass by. It is not going to pass by. We will remember what they did.Crude bitumenEnvironmental protectionKeystone Pipeline ProjectLabour forceNatural gasNorthwest TerritoriesOpposition motionsPetroleum refineriesPipeline transportationRaw materialsTexasValue addedVenezuelaNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Keystone XL Pipeline]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, what we want is more value out of the oil sands. That is what we are saying today. There is no question about it. I had a conversation at one point in time with the premier of Manitoba, Mr. Selinger. We talked about the potential for upgrading bitumen in Manitoba. There is an opportunity there. Other provinces should take a look at this. Why are we only thinking in terms of exporting raw bitumen when we could be looking at the opportunities right across the country. With the establishment of proper transportation systems within our own country, we could use the bitumen. Perhaps we could upgrade it in Manitoba and create good long-term jobs for Manitobans and for people in Saskatchewan, in Sarnia, Ontario, and on the east coast of our country. There are opportunities, if we want to talk about upgrading, that go far beyond simply the borders of the Ft. McMurray area. Therefore, be careful when you talk about exporting jobs out of our country.Crude bitumenKeystone Pipeline ProjectLabour forceOpposition motionsPetroleum refineriesPipeline transportationValue addedKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthFrançoisLapointeMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Keystone XL Pipeline]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, right across northern Canada, everyone is looking at resources. How we develop those resources and what we do with them is very important. It makes a huge difference to the communities. In the territory I live in, over the last decade we had a GDP rate of increase greater than almost anywhere else in Canada. At the same time, we saw our cost of living go through the roof. We saw the level of poverty in our communities increase. All of these things happen in resource economies. However, when we put good jobs on the line that are not simply extractive, when we give someone a future in a manufacturing plant, like an upgrader, over the next 40 years, we create some security in the economy. We create something that has value.Fort McMurray, in some way, will have to switch from exploitation to operation. It understands that. That will build a good community in Fort McMurray. However, with this exploitation, this constant rush to develop these resources, because there is no added value in them, is just a bad idea for Canada and a bad idea for Alberta.Crude bitumenKeystone Pipeline ProjectLabour forceOpposition motionsPetroleum refineriesPipeline transportationRaw materialsValue addedFrançoisLapointeMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finish off my comments on Bill C-3, an act to enact the aviation industry indemnity act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. To put the debate in context, the last time I spoke to this bill, I talked about the fact that while the Marine Liability Act amendments are important, they are really not what we are looking for from the government in terms of the protection of marine areas. Liability implies problems; it implies accidents. We are looking for regulations, enforcement, and investments in Coast Guards around this country to prevent and alleviate accidents before they happen. We want to ensure that what we are doing in our marine areas is the very safest for Canadians and for the protection of the environment, people, and property. Those are things that come first. Liability is important, but it simply does not give the protections we are looking for.In its past budgets, the government has cut Coast Guard stations, including the Coast Guard station in my riding, in Inuvik. The station that was in place for many years has now been removed. We do not have a Coast Guard response capability in Inuvik. There are companies looking at investing hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore oil and gas drilling in this region. The same thing is occurring in the Alaska region. We have no capacity for oil spill remediation. That does not exist for the Arctic to any degree. In fact, the ability of anyone to extract oil from ice-covered waters has not yet been proven to the satisfaction of those who look into these matters. We are making the area more hazardous through less investment in infrastructure in that region, and that is a problem, moving forward.The Conservatives have said over and over again that they are interested in exploiting the resources of the Arctic. They want to move ahead with economic development in the Arctic. They want to see the wealth of the Arctic being exploited. Let us start with taking care of the Arctic by making sure that the regulations for shipping are in place and that we are conducting ourselves by investing in infrastructure that can deal with the issues that come forward in the future. Surely as we increase the risk for companies working in an area, we should respond with the kind of protection that can reduce the liability from people who may suffer from accidents, because we would have some way of dealing with the accidents. That is not the case now. There are cruise ships moving through the Arctic. If we have a problem in the Arctic with a cruise ship, we have no way to deal with it. We have increased traffic through the Northwest Passage, a passage that has never been charted properly. We do not know where the rocks are, and we are putting ships through there now. When will the accidents happen? It will be soon enough. What will liability do to protect the environment? What will liability mean to the people of the Arctic?ArcticArctic OceanC-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityClosure of government operations and facilitiesCoast guard servicesEconomic developmentEmergency response and emergency respondersInuvikMarine conservationMarine Liability ActMaritime safetyNorthwest PassageOffshore technologyOil spillsPollution controlSecond readingTransportationAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—Émard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the Arctic today there is pressure for development; there is no doubt about that. This development has been encouraged by the current Conservative government through the granting of offshore leases over very large areas of the Beaufort Sea. Drilling and exploration have taken place in other areas of the Arctic as well. We can look off the coast of Greenland. Our neighbours in Greenland are also permitting drilling in very hazardous waters.What we need, across the whole circumpolar Arctic, are agreements on how to proceed with this type of work. This is so that ahead of time we have agreements in place and international arrangements. Through the Scandinavians working on the Arctic Council, we have moved forward with emergency measures coordination. We also need to coordinate on regulation that can deal with how we develop offshore resources, if we are going to go in that direction, and the current government seems bent on making that happen. We have a situation where the government is pushing ahead with development, but it is not taking proper care of the intrinsic nature of protection of the environment that is required to make the development safe.ArcticC-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other ActsMaritime safetyOffshore technologyOil spillsPollution controlSecond readingTransportationHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—ÉmardRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it gets to the nub of it. We cannot simply use liability as a way to deal with companies working in these conditions offshore, or in the marine conditions around Canada, for that matter. We need to provide a network of regulation, infrastructure and policy that would ensure that what is happening in our marine waters is happening in the best possible fashion. That would also require international co-operation. We need to put that together. In the Arctic, we now have the opportunity with the Arctic Council to do that. I certainly hope the minister who is sitting as chair of the Arctic Council will push forward with safe shipping practices for the Arctic.Arctic CouncilC-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCoastal areasEconomic developmentEnvironmental assessmentInternational cooperationSecond readingTransportationRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole HarbourPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Museum of History ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, I sense my colleague's great interest in history.Having sat on a museum board for a number of years in the Northwest Territories and having faced the inevitable decline of federal funding toward other museums across this country that try very hard to hold up the history of this country, I see the government investing a whole bunch of money into an Ontario-centric museum here in Ottawa and leaving behind all the museums in all the small communities across this whole country which, over the past two decades with the Liberal and the Conservatives, have seen one cut after another on any kind of federal support for these marvellous museums.The museum in my hometown, the Northern Life Museum, has over 10,000 artifacts that go back through centuries in northern Canada, collected by the Oblate missionaries. We do not get any funding anymore from the federal government. That collection is priceless. What will the government do for small museums across this country? Will it continue to build monuments here, or tear apart old monuments to create new ones in the capital region?C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Museum of HistoryGovernment billsMuseums and galleriesThird reading and adoptionRickDykstraSt. CatharinesRickDykstraSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNavigable Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from some 200 residents of the Northwest Territories asking for the attention of the House of Commons to the following. There are a number of rivers within the Northwest Territories and the Yukon that have been excluded from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The petitioners would like to see these rivers included in that act. This can be done through a simple order in council. The rivers include the Liard River, the Thelon River, the Soper River and the South Nahanni River. These are rivers of significance to northerners and to the rest of the country.Inland watersNorthern CanadaPetition 412-0247RiversKennedyStewartBurnaby—DouglasFinDonnellyNew Westminster—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this particular bill, another omnibus bill coming from the Conservative Party, which contains a number of very significant issues. One of those issues deals with an act that is really only directed toward the constituency I represent, the Northwest Territories. It is called the amendments to the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, and the bill changes the conditions of a particular fund that was set up through the work of the previous Liberal government and then through the work of the Conservative government in 2006 to deal with potential impacts from the Mackenzie gas project, a project that was put forward by Imperial Oil and, throughout the last decade, went through environment assessment.Support of most first nations groups along the Mackenzie Valley was achieved for this 1,200-kilometre-long pipeline with a collector field in the Mackenzie Delta. The Inuvialuit of that region also supported the project. We did go through a process by which this project achieved support. Part of that support came because of the decision by the federal government, both Liberals and Conservatives at the time, to a provide socio-economic impact fund to the communities. This fund, which was established as a trust fund of $500 million, was to be divided among the communities, the regions, the aboriginal organizations that represented the regions down the Mackenzie Valley and in the Mackenzie Delta. The Dehcho region was to receive $150 million; the Gwich’in region, $82 million; the Tulita-Deline region, $61 million; the Inuvialuit $150 million; and the Kasho Gotine-Colville region, $57 million.These sums were to be distributed over 10 years once the project had been approved and we had seen work going forward with the project, once the companies had initiated efforts to start the project. This money was clearly identified for socio-economic impacts over 10 years, so that the sums of money were to be used for projects designed and developed by the communities.These communities up and down the Mackenzie Valley, in the Mackenzie Delta, went through an extensive process to identify what they saw were their concerns in developing this pipeline: how it would affect their communities, how their communities could alleviate some of the impacts of such a major project, a $16 billion project, being conducted in an area where there were mostly traditional communities in very much pristine wilderness.We had a situation where these communities had gone into a two-year planning process and came up with detailed plans of how these dollars were to be spent. The government at the time, through an act of Parliament, set up an independent corporation that would manage these funds and ensure that the corporation would only provide contributions to regional organizations in respect of a project if the project mitigated the existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project. Quite clearly, this was designed solely for that purpose. (1015)There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008. All of this work was accomplished and it was put in place.That is the basic history of what has happened with it. Now, the Conservatives are talking about changing this project and the act to one where a minister, who is not designated in the act, will have the sole responsibility for issuing the funds for this rather large amount of money. We have a situation where the minister is not known. One of the significant differences in the bill is that in the previous bill, a corporation may only deal with this particular aspect when it is dealing with money, but now the new minister may designate the funds. There is a subtle change in the way the legislation is put out, which I have some concerns about, because I represent the people who went through the two-year planning process to come up with the ideas that would be initiated. Those ideas were ones that spoke to culture, language, young people, the significant and important social impacts that the communities recognized would exist after taking on a major industrial project. It would forever change the landscape in their regions. It would forever change the economics and would put enormous social pressure on these communities.What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate. This is a concern that I have. When we had the corporation in place, the corporation would have followed the directions that the communities had struck. It would have been an impartial body. We would have taken it away from the potential political interference that goes on with funds that are not clearly and carefully delegated to the right areas.Did the government not learn anything from the Muskoka minister's gazebo scandal? Did it not learn anything about the importance of dealing with funds in a non-partial, careful fashion so that the precise purpose of what these funds are developed for is implemented? We went through the process in the Northwest Territories. We established what these funds were to be used for in agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. These plans are in place. Where is the protection now for the work that people have done?It is changing. Why is the government changing this? Where was the consultation with anyone in the Northwest Territories about this process? When did the government actually talk to people and say it wanted to take it out of the hands of an impartial corporation, which is very carefully configured to ensure that the dollars are spent in the way that the communities want, and put it into the hands of a minister who may or may decide to support projects, based on political considerations? Where was that consultation? How did that work? Where is the success of that?What we have is a $500-million fund that has now been cut loose by the Government of Canada, by the Conservative Government of Canada, into the hands of a minister. It may or may not work in the way that is was designed to work. This is a pattern that we can follow with the Conservative government. It started off with good intentions. It felt accountability was important when it started off. It recognized that it did not want to follow the Liberal pattern. Now it is back. What pattern is it following? It is back to the way the Liberals used to govern. It is back there now. This is just another indication. I really am sorry that this has happened.I see that I only have five seconds left so I will take it up. Thank you.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measuresEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsMackenzie Gas ProjectMackenzie Valley PipelineNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesOil and gasOmnibus billsPolitical influenceSecond readingTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreDanyMorinChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, over the past two years, my constituents have rejected omnibus bills. They understand now what they mean, and this bill is no different. When we do something like this with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, following this debate in the House of Commons, a committee should be empowered to bring forward all the participants in the Mackenzie gas impact fund. The people who spent two years designing what their communities were going to do with this money should be brought in front of a committee so that this could be properly aired. The government did not do its work by going to these communities prior to this and talking to them about what was going on with the act, how the changes would take place, and ensuring them that the minister's prerogative over projects would not end up with these communities having to deal politically on every single issue. We need to bring these communities in front of the committee now. We need to bring in representatives of the communities so that they can understand better what the government's plans are. Perhaps we could assure them that the government understands. If there are problems with it, there could be assurances given that these funds would be dealt with in a proper fashion. Those are things that government should do. However, what we see from the other side is a lack of interest in dealing with Canadians in an honest and forthright manner.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measuresGovernment billsMackenzie Gas ProjectMackenzie Valley PipelineNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesOil and gasSecond readingDanyMorinChicoutimi—Le FjordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, perhaps he would go to my website. We did two very detailed analyses on Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, which are available on my website. They deal with how this government is changing the nature of doing business here, and talk to the long-term strategy that the Conservative government has to change the nature of Canada.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measuresDuty of careGovernment billsMackenzie Gas ProjectMackenzie Valley PipelineNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesOil and gasSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGeraldKeddySouth Shore—St. Margaret's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNavigable Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP)(1520)[English]Bill C-543. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Peel River).He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to add the Peel River to the list of waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Conservative government removed this very important river from that list as part of second omnibus bill, Bill C-45. After consulting this summer with the people in the Mackenzie Delta and those in the Yukon, there was a great deal of support for this river's protection. This is one step in making an attempt to return this river to a status of some measure of protection, which means that in the case of a development on the river, the federal government would have a responsibility to ensure that the development was following good practices.This is a river that has great tourism and wilderness value, and it is a river that has enormous significance to the Gwich'in people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresC-543, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Peel River)Inland watersIntroduction and First readingPeel RiverPrivate Members' BillsRiversSusanTruppeLondon North CentrePeterVan LoanHon.York—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the minister for taking over this portfolio.I have a question on the scope of the Marine Liability Act and how it will apply to navigable waters in Canada, the rivers and lakes that provide access to oceans. This is a simple question that could be answered very easily by the minister one way or the other.To understand that better is something that people in my constituency who regularly transport large quantities of petroleum and hazardous products up the Mackenzie River into the Arctic Ocean would be very interested in. There have been problems in this regard already. This summer there was a spill on the Mackenzie River. There are certain concerns that lie with the equipment and the ability to deal with moving these goods up rivers into oceans.C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsInland watersMarine Liability ActMaritime safetyOil spillsSecond readingTransportationLisaRaittHon.HaltonLisaRaittHon.Halton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill. I will stick with the Marine Liability Act amendments, because they would have a direct impact upon my riding in the Northwest Territories. It takes me back to seven years ago when I first came to Parliament and proposed that we change the motto from “from sea to sea” to ”from sea to sea to sea” because the importance of the Arctic waters is increasing dramatically. Within those Arctic waters we need protection. We need to take care of them, and it is a complex issue. We have in front of us the Marine Liability Act, which in some ways is the end state of protection of waters. The beginning of protection of waters lies with regulation, and right now at the Arctic Council we should be dealing with Arctic shipping regulations as internationally accepted. That is the body that can deal with that issue. In that way we could create regulations that would allow proper vessels to enter into the Arctic. Those are things that we should be doing right now. Those are things that should have the highest priority with the current government and with other Arctic governments.However, that is not the case. Our environment minister, the chair of the Arctic Council, has chosen to highlight economic development as the main ticket in the Arctic right now, while we need to work on regulations that could protect the Arctic and could set the stage for the responsible use of the Arctic in the future.Let us look at some of the ways that the Arctic is being proposed for use.We are going to be shipping oil to Churchill, Manitoba, by tankers, through parts of the Northwest Passage. These are uncharted waters. These are waters that are heavily influenced by moving pack ice. What kind of regulations do we have in place to deal with that? What kinds of policies? The second stage in most efforts to ensure protection of the environment is good policy, meaning we invest in the right places and make the right decisions in government to slow down the frequency of accidents and try to avoid oil spills. This is the second phase of any protection of waters.The third phase is infrastructure. Right across the country we have heard that infrastructure is sorely lacking. In fact, in the Arctic we have no infrastructure for taking care of large-scale oil spills. In fact, the science does not exist today to remove oil from ice-filled waters.What we do have in this situation is a failure to act in a sequential manner to provide protection to waters. Instead, laudably, we are putting liability forward as part of our primary objective. Whatever happens, we are going to ensure someone pays for some of it. That is the goal of the government right now.However, where is the planning? Where is the planning that actually talks about reducing the potential for accidents that cause liability to companies and upset the system and destroy the environment? Where is that work? That is the most important work here. That is the work that would actually protect waters.What we have is a situation in which we are bringing forward liability as the answer, and it is simply not adequate.It is typical of the government to look at simple solutions, especially cost. Concern for taxpayers is always laudable, but without planning, we are really putting the taxpayer in a position to have even greater losses when liability cannot be covered by the insurance claims that companies are allowed to make.(1355)How is that a sensible and practical approach to improving the safety on our three oceans? It is not there. It is not there because we are picking the last piece of the puzzle rather than outlining the whole picture of what is required to protect the waters of Canada's three oceans.When I asked the minister a question about the scope of this bill, it seemed that she did not understand it clearly. However, it is pretty clear to me that the scope of this bill covers all of our waterways and the potential impact of ships on any rivers that reach the oceans. It perhaps has a greater significance in the Great Lakes area than in northern Canada, but theses are all issues that we need to look at and understand. All across the north—Arctic OceanC-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCoastal areasGovernment billsMarine Liability ActMaritime safetyOil spillsSecond readingTransportationFinDonnellyNew Westminster—CoquitlamJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNavigable Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that comes from constituents in my riding, from Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories. There are some 200 signatures on this petition, which represents 50% of the population of that community. The petitioners ask that the Slave River be returned to protection under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Slave River, which the community of Fort Resolution is on the delta of, is an important connection in the north. It has been a navigable river for 100 years.Inland watersPetition 412-0059RiversSlave RiverLaurieHawnHon.Edmonton CentreKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion No. 2InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1920)[English]Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I do not enjoy hearing the sad tale of this 41st Parliament and I certainly would like to see changes to it. He spoke to the action at committees. I have been sitting on the aboriginal affairs committee over the past two and a half to three years and have seen legislation brought forward that simply impacts aboriginal people. I have seen the lack of consultation, the failure to consider amendments and the strangling of debate over these issues. We are talking about legislation that is specific to the first nations, the history and part of the future of our country. Those failures speak so much to what is happening with our democracy. The only people being affected by legislation are not being given their proper due at committees. That is one of the great failings of the government. It demonstrates its arrogance toward the Canadian population, those who are interested and so vital to us. That is why we are debating this today and why we do not accept simply returning legislation after the arrogance of a prorogation that was really not required.Daily ProgramDemocratic reformGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 2ProrogationReinstatement of bills from previous sessionBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockPatMartinWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, coming from the Northwest Territories, a small town, injection is not really a big issue in my community. However, where I live, and my hon. colleague happened to mention Sandy Hill, is very near what I call an unsafe injection site, the back side of a church in Sandy Hill, where addicts go on a regular basis to inject drugs.Quite clearly, the community understands that. Quite clearly, people are trying to make a move to find a way to deal with this. By putting all these qualifications in place, the government is not helping the situation in Sandy Hill. The situation in Sandy Hill can be helped by the community, through its municipal ordinances, through the municipality coming to a decision that this a good idea. I certainly do not want to walk out of my house in the next little while and find someone dead on the street from an overdose because of the delay that is going to be imposed upon getting any of these injection sites located into the communities. Will my colleague assure me that this terrible occurrence will not happen to me with this legislation delaying forever the introduction of a safe injection into this city, the capital of Canada?C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingJohnCarmichaelDon Valley WestJohnCarmichaelDon Valley West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNot Criminally Responsible Reform Act [Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a sad fact that we are here at this time speaking to another closure motion. This has gone on for a long time. It has become habit forming. The government is addicted to the process that it has created with the closure motions it has put forward.Quite clearly, through the limited debate time today, many issues have been raised and have not been responded to fully. Are we going to get to those in the five hours? I do not think so.What we see is a failure of the government to recognize the nature of its own addiction to its belief that it is right on all issues, that it is correct. Those things are very dangerous to our process.Would the minister look into his heart and understand what he is doing by supporting these types of closure motions over and over again? What is he doing to this process we are in?C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)Criminal liabilityGovernment billsLegislative processMental healthMotionsThird reading and adoptionTime allocationRobNicholsonHon.Niagara FallsRobNicholsonHon.Niagara Falls//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' nutrition north program has done nothing but increase the cost of groceries across northern Canada. It costs $17 for a box of cereal in Iqaluit, $19 for a bag of rice in Pangnirtung and $25 for baby formula in Clyde River. The Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures have voted unanimously to have the Auditor General investigate this program, but the Yukon and Nunavut MPs are very silent.Will the Minister of Health heed the demands of the territorial governments and call in the Auditor General to investigate this boondoggle?Auditor General of CanadaCostsFood supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programOral questionsAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersFood Prices in the NorthInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' nutrition north program, created by the Minister of Health, has done nothing but increase the cost of groceries across northern Canada.From Labrador to the Yukon, people are paying outrageous prices for food: $16.29 for a can of beef ravioli, $13.39 for a box of spaghetti, $14.49 for a bag of muffin dust, $59.59 for a package of ground beef. Unlike the old food mail program which subsidized the cost of shipping food north, nutrition north subsidizes the cost of selling food, resulting in record profits for some northern grocery stores.Northerners have taken to the streets to protest this failure, including a march by Inuit to Parliament Hill. However, there has been no action by the Conservatives. Now the legislatures of the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut have voted unanimously to have the Auditor General investigate this program.When is the government going to listen to northerners and fix this boondoggle?CostsFood Mail ProgramFood supplyNorthern CanadaNutrition North Canada programStatements by MembersPierreLemieuxGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLaurieHawnHon.Edmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, of course, there were consultations that took place with two first nations groups in particular. However, the requirements that came out of those consultations were not met. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has withdrawn its support for the bill. There is still some support from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. I want to read an email that I was copied on, which was directed to the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs. It is from a person from Band 23 in New Brunswick. She says:I was watching second reading of the Bill on CPAC last night (Tuesday May 28, 2013) and it brought to mind some interesting concerns regarding the process by which this legislation and others, has unfolded. You specifically mentioned an organization that supposedly represents the interests of the people in Atlantic Canada—the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs—and praised their input in the process. And there was mention, I am not sure if it was by you, that Chiefs were asked to take this legislation back to their communities to solicit input from the people. Well, from a personal perspective there has been no consultation with the people in my community. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someone who has any idea these changes....have been duly informed and have had an opportunity to question and comment. This has not been the case with Woodstock Band 23 in New Brunswick and if one community has been left out then I am sure there are others have been as well. Band councilsElectoral systemGovernment billsPublic consultationS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsSecond readingSenate billsPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeJeanCrowderNanaimo—Cowichan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly that is the nub of the issue with this bill and so many of the bills that the Conservatives have put forward regarding first nations governments. There has been lip service paid to the idea that first nations governments have a legitimate status, and they do under the Constitution and in so many ways, yet we leave them out of so much of this legislation that is going forward right now. Regulation is where the rubber hits the road in this bill. Under section 3, the minister would just have to be satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of a first nation, whatever that means. The minister could then force that first nation into the Elections Act and put forward the regulations of how that would occur. Without any appeal, if the minister had a problem with a first nation, he or she would have the ability to shut it down and put in new elections regulations. This is really inappropriate.Band councilsElectoral systemGovernanceGovernment billsS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsSecond readingSenate billsJeanCrowderNanaimo—CowichanBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSecond ReadingInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not going to happen, whether time allocation occurs or not. The Conservative majority government has chosen not to deal with amendments in a good fashion on the aboriginal affairs committee for the last two years that I have sat on it. A good example was Bill C-47, a bill that deals only with specific regions of the country. Representatives of those regions of the country put forward 50 amendments. New Democrats brought them forward and the Conservatives chose not only to vote against them but to not even speak to them. Once a bill is written, they do not seem to be interested at all in trying to work with the bill to make sure it is in a good fashion. The consultation is weak. Witnesses now would rather not come to the aboriginal affairs committee because they see it as a waste of their time. The process is falling apart around the Conservative government, and it keeps pushing forward with these bills.Band councilsC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsElectoral systemGovernment billsS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsSecond readingSenate billsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, then Conservative Senator Mike Duffy campaigned in the Northwest Territories during the last election and was double- or triple-dipping on expenses. Why did the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages say yesterday that the Conservative Party campaign was financed by Conservative funds, when that is clearly not true?AccountabilityAllegations of fraud and fraudBriberyChequesChief of staffConservative Party of CanadaCorruptionDuffy, Michael DennisElection campaignsEthics and ethical issuesExpensesOral questionsPolitical behaviourSenate and senatorsWright, NigelPierrePoilievreNepean—CarletonPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTechnical Tax Amendments Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1840)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question is on tax fairness and equity in the system.There is something missing in the bill, and would be some method of determining the inflation rate within the north for the northern residents tax deduction.In 2007, after constant lobbying on my part and on the part of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the territorial governments, which were asking for a 50% increase in this northern residents tax deduction that had not been changed since 1989, the government gave us 10%.Over the last six years, that 10% has been taken up by inflation. We are back to square one. We have not had the increases that would make the system fairer. Why did the Conservative government not put something into this legislation that would identify an inflation increase to the northern residents tax deduction, something that is absolutely required in the north? We are losing workers. The cost of living has gone up so high in the north that people are not staying there anymore. They are flying in and out to their jobs. What has happened in northern Canada in terms of the cost of living is a disgrace. Why did the Conservative government ignore the important requirements of tax equity and fairness for northern people?C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislationGovernment billsNorthern residents deductionTaxationThird reading and adoptionMikeWallaceBurlingtonMikeWallaceBurlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTechnical Tax Amendments Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1850)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a rare privilege to have an opportunity to ask my colleague a couple of question. He talked a lot about tax fairness and equity in his speech. I remember when the Conservatives thought they needed to fix the capital gains exemption for small businesses. They said it had fallen behind inflation, so they upped it by 50%. That was fair, and we did not argue about that.When does the member think we should deal with fairness in the tax system? The tinkering by the government that the member is talking about with these various components in this technical tax act are simply that. Where do we see the fairness in the system? Where do we see that the actual needs of Canadians are being taken into account when we look at the tax system, how it is set up and how it delivers for Canadians?When the member and his government talk about the $3,000 per average family, that is not the average family. The $3,000 is quite a bit larger for the more wealthy families and quite a bit smaller for the less wealthy families. Where is the money going in the system? Where is the fairness?C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislationGovernment billsTaxationThird reading and adoptionMikeWallaceBurlingtonMikeWallaceBurlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Museum of History ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented on our support or non-support for the bill. I come from the Northwest Territories, a land where people have lived in certain areas of it for about 30,000 years. I think my hon. colleague said that we are land of immigrants. In reality, where I live, the Chipewyan tribe, there were 90,000 people before the coming of immigrants who through the passing of disease dropped that population down to 10%. This changed things quite a bit for those people. Those people occupied Canada very completely.When my colleague made his history speech in the direction he has, it does not give me much assurance that the Conservative government has the right attitude to take forward with the history of Canada. In the history of the Canada that I represent in the Northwest Territories, people have lived for 30,000 years. Large indigenous populations roamed and took care of the land for thousands of years before the immigrants. If the member does not understand Canadian history, how does he expect the rest of Canadians to understand history? How does he expect us to have any comfort with what he says about history?C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian historyCanadian Museum of HistoryGovernment billsSecond readingTerenceYoungOakvilleTerenceYoungOakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Canadian Museum of History ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an entertaining address on Canadian history. I found it to be his version of Canadian history to be entrusting us. I suppose each one of us in this room would have our version of Canadian history, what we think is important and how it should be displayed.He talked about small museums. I sat on the board of a small museum called the Northern Lights Museum in Fort Smith. It actually had a great collection, collected by the Oblate priests from all over the north, 10,000 items. It is all in the national registry now. At the time, we got great displays from national museums in our museum. We actually had a museum assistance program. In the 1980s, we used to get $25,000 for our museum from the provincial government. That museum assistance program never got any bigger in size and eventually it was cut by the Conservatives.Small museums across the country need some financial support. What will this do for my small museum in my community?C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Museum of HistoryGovernment billsMuseums and galleriesSecond readingScottArmstrongCumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit ValleyScottArmstrongCumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on the addition to his family. That is always a wonderful event for all of us. I am sure that the smile on his face may indicate the same.His statement about the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs leaves me a little short. Here is a quote from Grand Chief Derek Nepinak: This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.That is the Grand Chief who is in power today, not the one mentioned by the parliamentary secretary. I would ask him to clarify which particular grand chief he was talking about. Is it the one who is currently in power, who has said that he does not support this particular legislation?Band councilsElectoral systemManitobaS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsSecond readingSenate billsGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity here, quite late on Tuesday night, to speak to this particular bill.It has been my viewpoint over the past two years on the aboriginal affairs committee that the Conservatives really have not been consulting in the correct fashion with first nations across the country. They come in with the wrong attitude. What we really need is to have first nations design the legislation that they would like to see enacted for their governments, their people and their nations. We can then take that in Parliament and understand how we can amend it so that it works. However, we have the opposite way and we saw that with the accountability act, an act that really was an unfortunate piece of goods that came from the government. It was universally condemned by first nations. They did have a couple of supporters there, but they were some very specific people who had problems in their own particular communities. Those who understood the nature of the first nations-Canada relationship rejected the accountability act.We are now at Bill S-8, the safe drinking water act, which we would think that everyone could get behind and support. However, once again, we see that the method of consultation and delivery of these bills is simply not working. The Conservative government is not providing the first nations with the opportunities to design the legislation so that it works for them. In this case, with the Senate putting forward Bill S-8, we also have the additional problem that we cannot make requirements for resources to ensure that first nations can actually meet standards that they would all want to meet.The history so far of the majority government has been of one that refuses amendments. I think of Bill C-47, when we put forward some 45 amendments on a bill that only affected Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Of those 40-some amendments, the Conservatives turned down all of them, even though the amendments were designed to make the bill work better. They were not coming from people who had great opposition to the bill. They were coming from people who were concerned that the bill should work right. In other words, once again the Conservatives failed to provide a methodology of consultation that delivered a product that people could get behind. I see that this pattern is being repeated with Bill S-6. The Conservatives did go into some consultation. They did hold meetings with first nations. They got recommendations from first nations about how this bill should be set up. The problem is that when the bill showed up, those recommendations were not carried forward in the fashion that the first nations had assumed.We can see that in the problem with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The first Grand Chief, who was involved in the consultation side of it before the bill was put out, was pretty happy with what was going to happen. He said that, but then when the bill arrived in the Senate, the Manitoba Chief that I quoted in my question to the parliamentary secretary said, "no, that is not what we are after". The consultation process is wrong. The consultation process does not deliver the goods for first nations. That is the problem here and the government has to change its direction in order to make legislation that truly represents first nations' points of view. The legislation is for the first nations. This legislation does not affect other people in Canada. The legislation is for the governments of the first nations. Therefore, it should really have those elements as the prime elements within the legislation. That seems to be simple. We are not here to force our way upon other governments. We are here to provide guidance and accommodation and to make the system work.(2400)Conservatives have a different view. They view it from that economic development lens. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that. Implicit within all the work that the Conservatives are doing is the idea that economic development for the first nations is the most important element. The most important element is not what the first nations want, not what the first nations deserve, but what will make economic development work. That is the Conservatives' point of view.What we see in legislation over and over again is that message. What is important for economic development is the primary thing that we will see in legislation that comes from the Conservatives on first nations issues. If first nations go along with that, and the government can get some to go along with that, those will be the quotations that are used. Those will be the validations that Conservatives seek.What really is needed? We really need to listen to the first nations. This legislation is for them, it is not for us. It is not telling us how we are getting elected. It is working with the first nations to come up with a system that they endorse, that they want for their very valid self-government efforts.In the consultation process there was probably a little more give, a little more understanding, but when it came back to Ottawa, the changes were made to ensure that it worked for the government and it plans. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.We have trouble with the bill. We also have trouble supporting it at second reading and taking it to committee. We have done this over and over again, but we are not getting any results. We are not getting the government to come onside for valid amendments to bills. That is the process by which we all want to engage in here. This is what we want to do at committees. We want to have the opportunity to take what the people want, take what the government wants, come up with some compromises. We do not want this hard line attitude about the committees and about how amendments are dealt with at committees. That is not working for us. What we are saying is that will oppose this bill at second reading because it does not what the first nations want. It is a tragedy that we cannot take the bill to committee with some kind of assurance that some of the important elements that need to be fixed in the bill will be fixed. However, when we beat our head against the wall and do not get results, then we should quit beating our head against the wall. That is sensible. We can fight it here in Parliament. We can go to committee and hear the witnesses who will say that they want amendments and to make the bill work properly. That is what we have heard over and over again. With all the legislation that has come in front of us, it has always been the case that the first nations witnesses who testify want solutions. They do not want to go away empty handed. It is a tragedy and it is wrong. That is not the way we should do government. Government is for the people. The people who are affected by legislation are the primary concern of the legislation. This is not for all of Canada. This is for first nations. They have the primary say here. If we go against that principle, we are really going against the principle of democracy if we are not allowing the people who are affected by the law to have the dominant say over how the law is put together. If a law affects all Canadians, then we all have a say in it. The responsibility is different. However, in the case when we are making laws for first nations, first nations that have a constitutional right of self-government, that have been in this land for thousands of years, who signed treaties, they should have a say in it. We did not take the land away from them, we signed treaties with them. The Queen agreed about how these treaties were taken care of in 1763.(2405)That is our history. Do we want to rewrite history? We should write it the way it has been done. I really would like to get along with the government on legislation for first nations when it starts getting along with first nations and when it starts listening to first nations. This is what the legislation is for. These are the people who are affected by the legislation. It is not for businessmen, not for those who look upon reserves as potential new sources of land and resources. No, it is for those people. Let us remember that when we deal with legislation. If we do not, we are simply not doing the job that, as Canadians, we know we should be doing.Band councilsElectoral systemManitobaPublic consultationS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsS-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation landsSecond readingSenate billsGregRickfordKenoraHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—Émard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Elections ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2405)[English]Mr. Speaker, having grown up with, gone to school with and spent my life with first nations people, I find them to be some of the warmest and most accommodating people I have known. They are people who are there for each other. It is interesting that in the Dene language there is no word for “thank you”. They had to invent a word for it because their culture says that taking care of each other is not a “thank you” issue, but an issue of responsibility. It is a wonderful culture. It is a culture that all Canadians could learn from, and we should respect that culture in every way in the legislation that we pass in the House.Band councilsElectoral systemGovernanceS-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First NationsSecond readingSenate billsHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—ÉmardJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncorporation by Reference in Regulations ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to this issue, and I was very glad that my colleague gave us a full exposition on the oversight committee on regulations.Forgive me; I need someone to field me with some details on this committee. The committee has the ability to modify regulations or simply just return them to the government.In the case of the bill, with the type of opportunity the government has to take regulations from other sources it does not control, would it not be that this committee would be sideswiped by this process in many cases, where the regulations that may be in place would be changed without that oversight occurring by the committee? Therefore that committee, which is an institution of this Parliament of which the members talk so highly, would lose some of its ability to ensure the regulations.As he has told us, these regulations go back and forth very many times, and very bright and capable individuals are giving them a very deep and sincere scrutiny. Is it the case that we will have regulations now that will not be accorded the same respect by this Parliament, by the government, and in that case, are we losing something in the process we have?Delegated legislationGovernment billsIncorporation by referenceS-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments RegulationsSecond readingSenate billsDavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here at 11 o'clock at night to have the opportunity to speak to the Statutory Instruments Act.First, I am not very pleased that the bill has come from the Senate. I find this is an inappropriate direction for legislation of this nature. It should have come from the House of Commons.Right now, at the aboriginal affairs committee, we are dealing with another piece of legislation, Bill S-8, which also came from the Senate. That legislation has been panned by almost everyone who is standing in front of our committee because it does not have the ability to provide resources for the things that are required within the bill.A Senate bill cannot put a financial burden on the government. Therefore, that bill is not effective. It is also the wrong direction, as well.That aside, when we look at the bill, it is an interesting one. I think we have all learned a lot through this debate tonight, and I am sure the debate will continue on it because it is a very important bill. As my colleagues pointed out, it would make 170 decisions of the government legal after being illegal for a number of years. There is a lot to regulation. There are 3,000 regulations on the books, consisting of 30,000 pages. There are also 1,000 draft regulations every year. That says that those 3,000 regulations are being changed constantly. There is change within the system. That change has the scrutiny of Parliament, its officers and its staff. That is taken care of within the confines of our Government of Canada.We now have a bill that would open up change to our regulations from a variety of sources that we would no longer have control over. What is going to happen here?In the bill, there is a section which says, “The power to make a regulation also includes the power to incorporate by reference an index, rate or number”. Now, we do not have definitions of those three things, but I guess we can assume that they cover most of the gamut of what regulations are. It goes on to say, “as it exists on a particular date or as it is varied from time to time”. Therefore, as it varies, it can be incorporated. It goes on to say, “established by Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada”, all good institutions. I do not have a problem with those institutions helping with regulations. Then it says, “or a person or body other than the regulation-making authority”As my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca said, this can be Canadian regulations, it can be provincial regulations, or it can be international regulations.We now have a situation where we are going to incorporate regulations under Parliament that are made in other countries. It sounds good. Countries make choices. They may be very good choices. However, those regulations can also be varied in those countries and we have no control over that. We would have no control over what would go on with those regulations when they are varied in those countries.How does that fit with sovereignty? I am not here to sell Canadian sovereignty. That is not my goal in this Parliament, I am sorry. Canadians need to control the regulations that are created by Parliament. They need to have a say over how those regulations are changed, whether they come through the provinces, whether they come through bodies in Canada, or whether they come through international bodies. That is quite clearly the case. That is what most Canadians will want.What we have is a situation where we need some amendments to the bill. We need to limit the ability to take on changes that are made in bodies outside our country. We need to ensure that changes made to regulations that are made within Canada have the scrutiny of Parliament through its procedures, through its committees that are set up to do exactly that. Those are types of amendments that could be made to the legislation to make it more palatable to most people when they understand the nature of what is going on with this innocuous named bill.(2310)It does not sound very threatening and, if handled correctly in the interest of Canadians, with the understanding of Canadian sovereignty, it works out quite well, unless it is used as a tool in international trade agreements to take on regulations so that we can make trade deals with other countries and take on their regulations.We are into the European Union right now. The European Union will demand a lot of things of Canada. It is going to demand that Canada do things the way the European Union does them. That is what it wants, if we want to have a trade deal with the European Union.This is an opportunity to give the European Union exactly that. We could take on the regulations of the European Union for many things. We could put them into our system, and in the future, if they make changes to those regulations, those will fit into our system as well. How does that fit with sovereignty? I do not buy it. I stand here today and say that if I do not hear a better argument against this, I cannot buy this legislation. If I do not see some kind of amendments in it that actually protect my country from having changes made to its laws by other countries without the scrutiny of this Parliament, I cannot buy that. That is not for me. If it is for you, then I say you should go back to your constituents and tell them what you are doing with Canada.Mr. Chris Warkentin: Mr. Speaker, he is telling you to go back to your constituents.Delegated legislationGovernment billsIncorporation by referenceS-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments RegulationsS-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation landsSecond readingSenate billsBrianJeanFort McMurray—AthabascaJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2310)[English]I have to say that your wisdom has increased ever since you have become a Speaker, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Chris Warkentin: Oh come on, apologize.Mr. Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the foreign investment protection act is another piece of legislation that just went through. The foreign investment protection act means if we change legislation regulations in Canada and it does not fit what the foreign investors had expected from our country, then they have the right to complain, to take action.All of a sudden now we are in a position where regulations that are decided somewhere else by someone else other than this Parliament can make that a probability, perhaps a reality. Those are things we have to think about with this. We are changing the way we are doing business. Is the way we are changing doing business the way we want to do that? I would say right now that, to me, amendments to the bill are needed.I understand why people want to have the bill, the necessity to do the things that make sense with the bill. It is good to have regulations that can recognize inflation and the changing nature of our society, that can do those things that make sense. I do not have a problem with that. I am in favour of that, but I am not in favour of impeding our sovereignty in any way through changing the way we make regulations. That is clear. I do not have to think twice about that.When we talk about Bill S-8, about the safety of drinking water on our first nations reserves, we are talking about a law that enables regulations, and those regulations will probably be made in provinces. Those provinces will change those regulations for safe drinking water as time goes on. That is the reality of the situation. We have a fiduciary responsibility to first nations in the government. We need to ensure that any changes that are made to regulations are run by the first nations to whom we will apply this law. Therefore, we need to have the opportunity to look at changes, to consult with our first nations about changes that are made by provinces if we adopt their regulations to govern safe drinking water on first nations reserves. There is another instance of why we need to look at this legislation.Delegated legislationGovernment billsIncorporation by referenceS-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments RegulationsS-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation landsSecond readingSenate billsJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehDanAlbasOkanagan—Coquihalla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, maybe it is the late hour or perhaps that very enthusiastic member has been listening to a lot of the debate intently and perhaps he missed it when I mentioned the type of amendments I would like to see made to the bill. I said I would like to see amendments that would ensure that any regulatory change that came through the incorporation by reference of any regulations, any of those changes that were made by any body other than the Parliament of Canada, would be subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament. That type of amendment would give us comfort that that is going to happen with this legislation.Delegated legislationGovernment billsIncorporation by referenceS-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments RegulationsSecond readingSenate billsDanAlbasOkanagan—CoquihallaLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I did not really touch on the issue of accessibility, but accessibility in terms of understanding regulation would probably be determined by the ability of whoever is dealing with these regulations to have the kind of professional assistance that is needed to wade through regulations and understand how they work.I have been in business and I know that the regulations that are needed to conduct a business in many cases are very complex, and they require a very good understanding of them. There are many. Sometimes in business one understands the regulation but if it changes, one can be caught many times. That is a reality of life in business. A small business without the resources to ensure it has accountants and lawyers working for it to understand the regulations well may find it has innocently broken the regulations. That is the unfortunate reality of life in this country.Delegated legislationGovernment billsIncorporation by referenceS-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments RegulationsSecond readingSenate billsLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesPaulCalandraOak Ridges—Markham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2125)[English]Mr. Chair, I will be asking questions. My critic's area is northern development, so I will be asking a number of questions in that area, but will also move on to some broader responsibilities of the minister.Why did the government not consult all the first nations in the Northwest Territories prior to its negotiating devolution of power to the Government of the Northwest Territories?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesPublic consultationBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2125)[English]Mr. Chair, they are not involved in the negotiations on devolution and consulting with them after the agreement has been signed is not consultation but simply showing them what will happen.As the premier of the Northwest Territories indicated, the deal was: take it or leave it. How can there be consultation with no negotiation?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesPublic consultationBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2125)[English]Mr. Chair, getting to the agreement itself, one of the most important acts in Parliament is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which governs all resource development terms and conditions.In the agreement, the minister will delegate certain powers to the territorial minister, but this act will not be transferred.Will the minister and the government turn the full power of the right to say yes or no to the terms and conditions of development to the territorial minister or will the territorial minister remain one minister among the other ministers of the federal government in making those determinations?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesPublic consultationBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2125)[English]Mr. Chair, the premier of the Northwest Territories indicated there would be no changes made to the agreement that was signed by the Prime Minister in Yellowknife in March. How can we still be talking about the conditions of the deal if there are no changes to be made to the agreement?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesPublic consultationBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, if there was no agreement made, what was the final agreement that the Prime Minister signed in Yellowknife? Was that not a final agreement? I am sure this is news to everyone who is listening in the Northwest Territories.Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDownload responsibilityMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesPublic consultationBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, okay, well, I will leave that then.Will the minister confirm that the cost to the taxpayers to cleanup the Giant Mine is over $900 million and is expected to rise?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineMain estimates 2013-2014BernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, that is certainly true, because the minister's staff would not indicate to the environmental assessment what the cost was going to be. Yes, the minister does not want to put a cost to it. However, will the cost exceed $900 million?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineMain estimates 2013-2014BernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, that is actually good news, because the minister will probably agree that we need to look at the ionization process to ensure that the water coming out of the Giant Mine site has no arsenic in it. Will the minister instruct his staff to consider the ionization process outlined by the environmental assessment process to deal with this particular problem of pollution?Consideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineMain estimates 2013-2014BernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, why did the minister change regulations on the downhole injection of drill waste, removing them from the Northwest Territories' water regulations just before moving forward with the agreement to change legislation?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesWater treatmentBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2130)[English]Mr. Chair, downhole injection of drill waste is a pretty straightforward issue. The minister changed the regulations. He has put them under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. They are not going to come in front of any environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories. Can the minister explain why he did that?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014Northwest TerritoriesWater treatmentBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2135)[English]Mr. Chair, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition is concerned about the changing to funding for the implementation of their land claims. Is the government still planning to move to per capita funding? Is it changing the funding formula in any way?Aboriginal land claimsAboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014BernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2135)[English]Mr. Chair, in the United States any transfers of offshore leases have to be signed off by the President of the United States. In Canada, the minister only has to be notified of a transfer of lease on offshore oil and gas developments.Will the minister countenance in the near term changing the legislation to give him more control over the transfer of offshore leases?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014Offshore technologyOil and gasBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2135)[English]Mr. Chair, in the last budget there was talk about clean energy for aboriginal communities in northern Canada.Can the minister outline any of the efforts he has taken in that regard over the last year?Aboriginal peoplesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014Renewable energy and fuelBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2135)[English]Mr. Chair, when the minister talked about housing for reserves, he talked about 1,700 houses built on 620-some reserves. That works out to fewer than three houses per reserve per year. He talked about renovations to housing on reserve. There were 3,000 houses renovated. That works out to fewer than five house per reserve.Does the minister think that fewer than three houses built per reserve and fewer than five houses renovated per reserve are the numbers that are required to fix the problem of housing on aboriginal reserves across Canada?Aboriginal reservesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentHousingMain estimates 2013-2014BernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2140)[English]Mr. Chair, when it comes to capital funding for schools, the minister has indicated $118 million a year. There are 600 reserves across Canada.We have heard the figure of 48 schools that need to be replaced. The capital cost for replacing a school in a remote and isolated community, as I know very well, coming from the Northwest Territories, is probably in excess of $30 million.Does the minister think that somehow this $118 million capital replacement budget that he has indicated for reserve schools is going to be adequate to actually catch up to the problem that we have with aboriginal schools being substandard across this country?Aboriginal reservesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentMain estimates 2013-2014SchoolsJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEconomic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. She outlined a number of issues, some of which may have been more on the budget side than on the budget implementation bill. However, that is probably one of the problems with this budget implementation bill. It does not really apply changes to the government's behaviour in a good fashion. Right across the world, the fastest growing energy form is solar energy, interestingly enough, with investments that are expected to hit $300 billion in the next year or so, yet within the budget there is an absolute lack of understanding about the nature of the green energy movement that is going on right across the world. The Conservatives' head-in-the-sand approach to renewable energy is really going to leave Canada in the lurch over the next number of years. Certainly, it will not make their case with our oil and gas trading partners that they are actually working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.What does my colleague think of the government's approach to renewable energy?Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measuresGovernment billsRenewable energy and fuelSecond readingSolar energyKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami found that tooth decay is two to three times worse among Inuit than the average among Canadians. ITK wants to see more oral disease prevention, more health promotion and more treatment, rather than just more pulling of diseased teeth. Considering this, why did the Minister of Health end funding for the country's only national school of dental therapy, forcing it to close, when the people most in need are her own constituents?Aboriginal peoplesGovernment assistanceOral and dental healthOral questionsStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—BellechasseLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, not only are they denying responsibility, but they deny science.We do know what kind of science Conservatives believe in: pseudo-science. When the member for Yukon was asked by a constituent for polar bear information, he gave them a report penned by a trio of climate change deniers. He even called evidence from Environment Canada scientists government propaganda.When will the government stop misinforming the public, stop attacking science and start making fact-based decisions?Endangered speciesOral questionsPolar bearsScientific research and scientistsLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNot Criminally Responsible Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the notice requirements. Are these mandatory requirements, or can the victims choose not to be notified of any more events related to the incident they were involved with? In many cases, that may be what the victims would want. In cases where the acts of violence are completely random, the victims may not want to have this on their plates for any longer than the time it happened. What is the provision within the law in terms of notice?C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)Criminal liabilityGovernment billsInformation disseminationMental healthSecond readingVictims of crimeLindaDuncanEdmonton—StrathconaLindaDuncanEdmonton—Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has finally admitted it misled Canadians when it said the cost of dealing with the over 270,000 tonnes of arsenic at Giant Mine was only $449 million. The new figure is nearly $1 billion and could go higher. Canada only received a little over $400 million in 2002 dollars in royalties over the 60-year life of the mine, meaning Canadians are on the hook for around $600 million.While the Conservatives were hiding the massive cost to Canadians to clean up the environmental disaster at Giant, they were slashing environmental protections, particularly for the oil sands and the oil industry in general.Considering the massive cost to Canadians for cleaning up one single mine, I have to wonder just how many billions of dollars our children and grandchildren will be paying because of the Conservatives' and the Liberals' failure to ensure the environment is protected in their rush to exploit the oil sands.The cost of cleaning up the oil sands tailings ponds alone will be gigantic.ArsenicCost overrunsEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineStatements by MembersTailings pondsTar sandsMauriceVellacottSaskatoon—WanuskewinJohnWilliamsonNew Brunswick Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a lack of information here but about a lack of will. The Conservatives are putting the Indian studies support program in jeopardy. They are telling institutions that they cannot use federal dollars to pay for day-to-day activities like rent or salaries, and this is with only three days' notice. It is simply unacceptable.These programs have been one of the biggest success stories in providing indigenous students with the skills training they need to participate in our economy. Why is the government changing this program, when everyone agrees that indigenous education is a priority?Colleges and universitiesFirst NationsGovernment assistanceIndian Studies Support ProgramOral questionsBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—RestigoucheBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNot Criminally Responsible Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, the more we dig into it, the more we find things about the bill that are not that easy to deal with.Right now most people who are found not criminally responsible are not subject to a trial as a result of agreements that are made between the courts and the lawyers. With defendants now facing three years in confinement before being eligible for a hearing, they may just simply decide to go to trial and be put in jail if found guilty as there is a likelihood of that happening.The recidivism rate for people with mental disorders who commit crimes who go to jail is some exponential figure that is higher than those who are treated outside of jail.How do you think this will play out in the long term? Will this work in our favour with respect to costs and the ability to protect society with such a high rate of recidivism among those who actually go to jail?C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)Criminal liabilityGovernment billsMental healthRecidivistsSecond readingManonPerreaultMontcalmBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Climate Change]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.We have had a bit of debate about who is responsible. In reality, the responsibility for the development of the fossil fuel industry in our country lies with the Liberals. It was a Chrétien government, along with Ralph Klein, that set up the deal on the oil sands. That favourable tax deal and the lack of proper regulation drove the development of this industry, which is causing us extreme problems right now in our presence on the world stage and our greenhouse gas emissions. There is culpability on the part of both of these governments since 1995, dealing with the oil and gas industry. I come from the north. We know about climate change. Environment Canada's temperature data for the Mackenzie Valley since 1951 has shown average temperature increases of 2.5° Celsius. For Inuvik, this data shows an annual increase of 3.1°. The average winter temperature increases are even greater. Inuvik has seen an increase of 5.8° Celsius over that period of time. Norman Wells and Yellowknife have seen average increases of 3.9° Celsius. We understand about climate change. We understand the impact, whether it is on our forests, or on our permafrost, where in some cases we have lost 40% of it, or on the ice melt in the Arctic, of the changing conditions on our climate, the increased temperature causing those effects. The Mackenzie River spring melt and ice-free dates have advanced by about 20 days in the last century. On September 26, 2012, our environment critic and I tried to have the House conduct an emergency debate on the rapidly decreasing amount of summer Arctic ice. Why did we do that? Because that summer, Canadians were experiencing, not just the north but the rest of Canada, the impacts of climate change. Why was that? Because things were changing and changing rapidly. Before we reach 2° Celsius, we will be impacted tremendously by climate change.The United States had the highest August temperature since 1885 and droughts throughout the country. What caused that? A report by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephen Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin showed that the extreme weather was directly related to the loss of Arctic summer ice cover. Arctic summer ice cover has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and it was at its lowest level last summer. It is 50% below what it was in 1979. It is adding heat to the ocean and the atmosphere to redirect the jet stream, the fast-moving, high altitude river of air that steers weather systems across the northern hemisphere.The studies show that jet stream is behaving differently. It is becoming slower, with bigger troughs and ridges. This is causing major impacts to our climate. This is causing greater large-scale climate events like the storm, Sandy, that hit the New York coast.I will not go into the details of why this is happening. Members can look on the website. They can find those details for themselves. This is an issue for all Canadians. The changing jet stream is the main culprit behind the extreme weather events that we see, so we know we will continue to see those major and extreme weather events moving forward. We need to understand how to deal with that in Canada.I will take a step back now and talk about how we should be dealing with it in the north. It is clear the Conservatives and the Liberals before failed completely to deal with northern Canada and effectively with climate change, to help northerners reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and make their communities more sustainable. Instead, governments looked on the north as a resource extraction area. That goes for both those governments. They both considered the north to be of prime importance. Instead of the north improving its situation, it will add to the world problem of climate change.(1240)The other path that should be taken in the north is northern sustainability. Sustainability is a word thrown around to cover a variety of situations, from large industrial projects that support local employment and business to the allowable yield of wild animals for human consumption. As a long-time northerner, I would see sustainability defined as the ability to maintain a modest lifestyle that can be enhanced and made prosperous with the addition of carefully managed medium-term resource development projects. I want something that gives me confidence that my grandchildren will have a prosperous future. We need to look at how to change the north's reliance on fossil fuels. Southern Canada has been in a bit of an artificial envelope because people use natural gas to heat their homes. The price of natural gas has not gone up in 10 years. In northern Canada, where people heat their homes with fuel oil, the increase in the last decade has been 400%. Considering the amount of heating required in the north, it is a big problem, a big problem that is not being solved, yet it is an issue that the government could deal with. It could work with the people in the north. Northerners are trying to make a difference there. The Government of the Northwest Territories has been very successful in converting many of its buildings to biomass. It has come out with a solar energy strategy. These are things that can help people in the north, but where is the federal government on this? It is not there yet.Obsolete thinking about energy as an exportable, non-renewable resource has taken Canada out of step from where it should be. It is more involved in increasing greenhouse gas emissions in this global environment than simply within Canada. That is where see the failure of the Conservative government right now.What have been the actions of the Conservative government over the last year in terms of influencing the world on climate change? It has stepped out of the UN committee dealing with desertification, one of the serious issues that is going to be in front of us with climate change. It has refused to deal in the House with the serious issues facing our weather systems. The Arctic Council has worked for years to put climate change as the main item on its agenda. What is the new minister, who is taking over the chairmanship, talking about for the Arctic Council? She is saying we should talk about resource development. She is saying we should move this international body away from dealing with the impacts of climate change and more toward exploitive behaviour. We have disengaged from Kyoto. We have given up on major agreements that can drive the rest of the world to join us in improving greenhouse gas emissions. We need to work together in this world. This is not a problem that can be solved in Canada by improving our efficiency or setting regulations for Canadians; this is a problem that has to be dealt with around the world.Now the President of the United States is geared up for climate change. What major effort is Canada putting into the United States right now? We are trying to sell oil that has a large greenhouse gas profile attached to it. We are pushing it very hard in the United States. Where are we working with the United States on the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions? Where are we trying to deal with the President, who said that is going to be one of his major priorities?We are religiously promoting the sale of fossil fuels. That is what the government is doing. That is its direction. That is the intensity of its efforts in the international field. How does that fit with dealing with the crisis that is coming with the change in climate? How is the government being responsible? It is not. The government needs to understand that climate change is not a situation that we can gradually improve in the future: climate change is here today. The government should deal with it and get on it.ArcticCanadian Climate Change Adaptation FundEnergy conservationGreenhouse gasesKyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeNorthern CanadaOil and gasOpposition motionsPermafrostSea iceUnited States of AmericaWeather warningsMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton HillsRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Climate Change]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Arctic is the major changing area in the world right now. The Arctic is changing in a significant and very important fashion. We need international co-operation at the highest level in order to set the terms and conditions for dealing with the changes that are occurring there. If we do not take those actions or if we use the Arctic Council to promote domestic issues and do a show and tell on how well we are doing in our north, that is going to put us two years behind on the job that has to be done in the Arctic. Those were the comments that I have made about the government's efforts in the Arctic. We need to keep on the international agenda, meaning that we need to deal with climate change, we need to deal with the opening of the Arctic Ocean in terms of international co-operation, and we need to deal with the fisheries. Those are issues that can only be handled at the international level. The Arctic Council is the sole body that we have in the world to deal with those issues. That is why it is so important right now for the focus of the Arctic Council to remain on the global issues, the issues that will determine the future of this rapidly changing body of water.ArcticCanadian Climate Change Adaptation FundGreenhouse gasesNorthern CanadaOpposition motionsBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Climate Change]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the people spoke. I know that is what happened. I know that when the Liberals were starting their election campaign, they were ahead in the polls. They had an opportunity to remain in government, but they fumbled it terribly. They are sitting there trying to blame that on us. They are trying to blame their terrible election campaign in 2005 on the NDP. What is the world coming to? Let us get the facts straight on this. The Liberals made their bed and they have to lie in it. That is what happened.Canadian Climate Change Adaptation FundGreenhouse gasesOpposition motionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendments to the Standing Orders ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention on this very interesting debate today, and I thank the Liberal Party for bringing this forward. In the seven years I have been here, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to stand up on a procedural issue.How do we make the rules in this House of Commons? Certainly they should be decisions of the House, but quite clearly they must follow the basic precepts of our country, and rules such as the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. That should be reflected in our practices here. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Are we content to continue to follow rules that were set up a long time ago without thinking our way through these rules to see that they are appropriate?I think of the way that the Speaker arbitrarily goes from party to party when asking for questions after debate. Even so, parties are not the same size. By doing that, the Speaker is denying equality of opportunity for those in larger parties, for those in smaller parties. Is that fair? I will ask the hon. member, is it not good to have debates about how we behave in this House? Is this not part of what could bring about a better House of Commons, one that could represent the people of this country in a more democratic and sensible fashion?Opposition motionsRecognition to speakStanding Orders of the House of CommonsStatements by MembersLysaneBlanchette-LamothePierrefonds—DollardLysaneBlanchette-LamothePierrefonds—Dollard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNavigable Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP)(1005)[English]Bill C-499. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-499, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Alsek River and other rivers). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to include a number of rivers throughout the three northern territories, rivers like the South Nahanni River. A number of years ago the Conservative government expanded the boundaries of Nahanni National Park and recognized the extreme importance of that area of Canada as a heritage area, an area to be protected. This is one of the rivers we are including within this bill to ensure as time goes forward that these rivers are given the type of protection that is required under the law that exists now. The law is not adequate, but this is the protection that we can provide for these rivers. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-499, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Alsek River and other rivers)Environmental protectionInland watersIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsRiversCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, confidential documents on the Giant Mine cleanup demonstrate it actually costs less to protect the environment than to just let polluters off the hook. The Treasury Board now pegs the cost of cleanup of the arsenic trioxide at double the government's previous claim, $903 million.Will the government admit it is wrong? Protecting the environment protects the taxpayer as well. For $1 billion, surely we can find a better way to treat this poison other than freezing it underground.ArsenicCostsEnvironmental clean-upGiant MineMining industryOral questionsToxic wasteJoeOliverHon.Eglinton—LawrenceGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCanada Petroleum Resources ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1510)[English]Bill C-485. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-485, An Act to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act (transfer approval). He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put forward the bill to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. The bill would amend section 85 of the act, requiring that all lease transfers must be approved by the minister, that there be a 60-day period of public comment before the minister makes his decision on these transfers, that all public comments must be available through the department's website and that the minister's decision must be made public through a notification in a local newspaper. Under the current law, when an oil company transfers an oil or gas lease, especially in the offshore areas, it is only required to notify the minister. The minister has no ability to say yes or no to those transfers, even though the minister, when approving leases, has the ability to say yes or no to them. We would put these transfer opportunities back in the hands of the minister. Canadians have been rightly concerned about the disposition of their natural resources through the sale of Nexen and through other things that have happened where foreign companies have taken over vast quantities of our Canadian natural resources.With the great interest there now is in the Arctic, there is need for more protection and more understanding of the transfer potential of leases that are given in the Arctic. The bill would give that protection to Canadians and to the future of our natural resources industry. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-485, An Act to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act (transfer approval)Introduction and First readingOil and gas leasesPrivate Members' BillsTransfer of propertyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonCorneliuChisuPickering—Scarborough East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsExperimental Lakes AreaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, I join the parade of MPs today putting forward petitions from Canadians asking for the saving of the ELA freshwater research station, and asking the government to change its decision to close this great facility.Budget cutsClosure of government operations and facilitiesExperimental Lakes AreaFresh waterPetition 411-3308Scientific research and scientistsWater qualityFrançoisChoquetteDrummondMylèneFreemanArgenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNuclear Terrorism ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak, however briefly, to this particular subject. In a previous Parliament we had many a debate over the Nuclear Liability Act, and many of those issues are very important to us all. I really do not see any reason why debate in the House on such an important issue should be curtailed simply because we all agree on things. We are looking for better answers throughout the time that we work on a bill. Certainly this bill is no exception. No one can say that the bill comes from experience, because not everyone has experience with radioactive waste and not everyone has experience with what happens with radiation when it gets into the environment.I want to preface with a couple of experiences that I have had in my community and in the north.The first one deals with the transport of yellowcake from the Port Radium mine on Great Bear Lake in the 1930s, when it was transported by gunny sack down the Mackenzie River and over the portage at my town of Fort Smith. Sixty years later, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited came through to deal with the residue that came from the yellowcake that was carried on people's shoulders in gunny sacks. This was after many of them suffered radiation-induced cancer throughout the system and that is something that can be referenced by googling the Deline radiation issues.In any event, when passing through the community, one of the bags happened to fall off a cart. Sixty years later, we could identify precisely where that bag fell off the cart. The residue remains in perpetuity unless we do a very massive cleanup.The second incident I want to talk about is COSMOS 954. COSMOS 954 was a satellite that the Russians lost control of in 1984 or 1985, somewhere in that range. This was a nuclear-powered satellite with a reactor the size of a football. It exploded coming through the atmosphere and the debris from that explosion covered an area of some 30,000 square kilometres, including my community of Fort Smith, which was on the edge of that radius. When the cleanup started, people with Geiger counters could go through the community and sort out the pieces of radioactive material that littered the entire community. A team of people worked all summer long with Geiger counters, picking up the pieces as they went around.Radioactive material is dangerous material. Radioactive material in any size, shape or form can cause difficulties for human beings. We are seeing this now on a more massive scale with what has happened at Fukushima, where radioactive releases are costing the economy of Japan a huge price and will continue to do so. We can look at Chernobyl where large numbers of deaths occurred, but the impact on the countryside and on the people who lived in those areas was huge as well.Now we come to the potential for dirty bombs—that is, someone taking some radioactive material and blowing it up in a populated area, say over Ottawa, using a Cessna 172 filled with some explosives and some radioactive material they happened to get somehow from Chalk River or from some other place. The impact upon the city of Ottawa would be immense. The cleanup would be incredibly costly. The cost to the community over time would be incredibly serious.What we are talking about are serious issues. These are issues that can affect us all. I have seen the effects of very small amounts of radiation escaping from the system. Deliberate efforts to create radiation issues with something such as a dirty bomb would be devastating to anyone in the areas that was hit by it. (1750)We might not see it today. It might not be something that kills everyone in its surroundings, but it would kill the initiative of people to live in that area. It would take away so much from any community affected by it.When we talk about the act, are we taking it seriously enough? Have we identified any criminal offences that could be put against people who might, without malice or intent to injure or create serious bodily harm, simply make mistakes or do something that was wrong with the material moving through the system? Let us remember that there are thousands of sources of radioactive material around the world. There are thousands of sources of radioactive material in Canada. The problem is very large. Would this act give enough impetus to those who are in charge of radioactive material any sense of their mistakes or apprehensions, or perhaps cover criminal activity in selling it to someone else or in dealing with it in a bad fashion, even not with the intent to injure or kill? Would it cover completely what we want to do with those types of people? That would be my question with the legislation. That is why I am standing here today and talking about it. It is important to have debate and discussion over these types of issues. I notice the Conservatives have not spoken up on the bill in front of us to explain to their constituents and to us in Parliament how they feel about this issue. Simply to push it through without debate and without understanding is not the thing to do. We need to understand the issue. We need to explain to Canadians what we are doing, how it works and what the legislation is intended to accomplish. If we simply say we will push it through and someone else can take care of it, and we simply fulfill our role under treaty obligations, we do not know if we are doing enough to protect Canadians, because we do not understand this issue that well.Is that what is happening here with this question as we stand up and debate this subject in Parliament? I find that reprehensible in some ways, and that attitude should be looked at very carefully by all members of the House. When we talk about this issue, there are many things to say. I have said what I really wanted to say about it because we want a full discussion of those issues at committee. It is not good enough that the Senate has done it; we are elected members. We need to make sure that the work that is done is correct.I hope that all members will enter into thought about this issue. It is serious. It is one of the more important items that have been brought forward to protect Canadians in my time here in Parliament. We speak about protecting the victims of crime. This is a great opportunity to do just that, because these are preventative measures. It is not good enough to have a bill that simply deals with the after-effects of criminal activity in this regard; we need to prevent this type of activity from happening.Government billsNuclear energyRadioactive materialsS-9, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeSenate billsTerrorism and terroristsThird reading and adoptionTransportation safetyPaulDewarOttawa CentreAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNuclear Terrorism ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question, because it is really germane to what I was saying.The importance of recognizing the criminal liability of those who handle radioactive material is part of the solution in dealing with this. I do not see that in the bill. I do not see that the bill has addressed that in any way. There are no penalties for an error, bad judgment or simple carelessness in dealing with this type of material. That is something we should perhaps look at in committee. What are the responsibilities of those who handle radioactive material and enter it into the system?As my colleague from Ottawa Centre has pointed out, we are going to be engaged in some very large takedowns of nuclear facilities in Canada, and those questions are of extreme importance.Government billsNuclear energyRadioactive materialsS-9, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeSenate billsTerrorism and terroristsThird reading and adoptionTransportation safetyAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesRathikaSitsabaiesanScarborough—Rouge River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodService CanadaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' requirement that first-time applicants for social insurance numbers have to apply in person has made it nearly impossible for people in remote communities to get a card.In Nunavut in communities like Grise Fiord, people must travel to a Iqaluit, costing thousands in air fare and a week's journey. Getting a SIN card is the first step in getting a job. This move flies in the face of Conservative rhetoric about job creationWill the minister reinstate the mail-in process for these cards?Government servicesNunavut TerritoryOral questionsRemote communitiesSocial insurance numbersAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleDianeFinleyHon.Haldimand—Norfolk//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, documents have revealed that Conservative mismanagement is now forcing Canada's military to scale back plans in the Arctic.The air base at Resolute Bay is shelved. The promised navy port is nothing more than an unheated shed and the navy's Arctic patrol ships are delayed until at least 2018.When will the Conservatives realize that Arctic sovereignty comes from working with other Arctic nations and listening to northerners? Do they not understand that high-priced photo ops for the Prime Minister do nothing to help Arctic communities?ArcticMilitary shipsOral questionsStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—AssiniboiaPeterMacKayHon.Central Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 impacts both the constituencies that I and the minister represent. One of the issues with the bill is the fact that these very different entities were not treated with respect and given separate bills for the purposes of carrying on this discussion and to ensure that the issues inherent in such complex bills were well established in Parliament.Land use planning is a very important element in the bill and I agree with the minister that this is important in the Northwest Territories. In the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we have had a section on land use planning since its creation. Unfortunately, no land use plans have yet been put in place through that process, so the land use planning is much retarded.We heard presentations from the Nunavut Planning Commission, which indicated that when the bill was passed with the kind of single entry approach, with the resources now had available to it, it would likely be in contravention of the act going forward.The government is not putting forward the dollars to do environmental assessments. We saw that the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board—C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritoryThird reading and adoptionLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I will not use the wildly inaccurate short title the Conservatives have dreamed up for this bill, because this is a bill that speaks to more than simply job creation.The bill affects two regions of the country that are moving toward more self-determination at all times, two regions of the country that are settling their land claims in a good fashion with the opportunities that come with settled land claims.We have a situation in the Northwest Territories where aboriginal governments and public governments have to get along. We have to learn how to get along and how to work together.In Nunavut there is a single government that represents all the inhabitants of Nunavut, one land claim. Its job is slighty less complex than that of the Northwest Territories, but both are working very hard to achieve unique and satisfactory arrangements between the constitutionally entrenched rights of first nations and Inuit and the rights of public government that are held by all of us.Bill C-47 was shown in committee to be very flawed. The Conservative member for Mississauga South said about it at committee, “No one got exactly what they wanted from this legislation”. None of the people in the north who wanted to see the legislation go forward got what they wanted.The bill is so flawed that the Conservative member for Palliser said, “None of the stakeholders involved in the development of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act got everything they wanted in the bill”. Why is that? This is a bill for those people. This is a bill for the people of Nunavut to deal with their rights going forward. Why did they not get what they wanted? What was the problem?This is a bill so poorly executed that the Conservative member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River said, “Nobody, including industry, got everything they wanted in this legislation”.The bill is going forward in a flawed fashion. It is an essential bill. It is a bill that is needed by Nunavut, especially, for its requirements for the legislation from this Parliament. It needs this. It has been waiting for this for a long time. Committee witness after committee witness brought forward numerous mistakes Conservatives made in developing the bill, but they chose to ignore those. They chose not to address amendments. They simply voted them down, one after another. As Chief Roy Fabian of the Kátl'odeeche First Nation in the Northwest Territories said of the process used to develop this legislation, “It is extremely frustrating to attend meetings and express concerns, provide recommendations to address the concerns, and then see that input ignored”. Who knows better what is good for the north than those who reside in the Conservative headquarters in Ottawa?Because the bill was so badly drafted, the opposition put forward 50 amendments to fix these mistakes and 49 of those amendments were recommended by various stakeholders. The 50th, which was another one, was based on wording from the parliamentary secretary who attended meetings in Yellowknife, substituting the word “and” for “or” in the legislation when he talked about the use and the understanding of traditional knowledge by those who were to be appointed to the board. We wanted to clarify that, but the Conservatives would not accept that either.Let us look at some of the amendments we have put forward. There were two amendments that would ensure the Nunavut Planning Commission would hold public hearings as part of its review of an application. This amendment was requested by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. It provided for transparency of process, which would make the commission more accountable. What is wrong with that?(1230)There was an amendment making clear that projects approved under one land use plan would be grandfathered and would remain unaffected by changes or amendments to a land use plan. This amendment was requested by the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines. People in the industry wanted assurance when they went forward with a project that they would not be blind-sided later on by changes to any land use planning. Why would the Conservatives turn this down?There are amendments replacing the vague word “opinion” with the word “determined”. These changes would have strengthened the language of the act. The amendment was requested by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the land claims group that worked so hard to establish its homeland in Nunavut. Its ideas for the bill were turned down.There was an amendment that would require the board to have a participant funding program. By providing participant funding, the review process would be more efficient and economical. This amendment was requested both by NTI and by the Nunavut Impact Review Board.We all know that in the north, communities that want to talk about projects that are going forward on their land are separated by large distances. It is very expensive to travel. The ability to get expert witnesses in front of a board to deal with these issues is absolutely imperative for these communities so that they can deal with the difficult questions that come out of projects of the magnitude we have seen proposed in Nunavut. This amendment would have guaranteed participant funding for those groups. It was turned down as well.Another amendment from the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines would require that the act be reviewed by a committee of Parliament five years after it came into force. This was pretty straightforward. If 50 amendments came forward to us on the precise nature of the changes required to make the act work better, and all of them were rejected, would one not think it would be appropriate to provide a review process after five years? I sat on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board when it was first set up. It was quite clear within two or three years of being put into practice what changes to that legislation were required. We have a situation such that we will not have a review. The review is not going to take place. This legislation is going to be stuck. The opportunity to bring it back to Parliament will require political support from whatever government is in power at the time. It will have to be put back on the agenda to get some changes made. That is really not very good.There was the amendment restricting the NWT surface rights board's jurisdiction to lands outside municipal boundaries. It provided certainty to municipalities that have planned for land use inside their own communities. This amendment was requested by the NWT Association of Communities and also by the non-governmental organization Alternatives North. It was a simple amendment that would have allowed municipalities to deal with their land in an appropriate fashion without having the strange situation that can come up when there are mineral claims within municipal boundaries.Finally, and this is not finally in terms of all the amendments made but is the final one I am going to talk about, there was an amendment giving authority to the NWT surface rights board to require financial security to ensure compliance with its orders. This amendment was requested, once again, by Alternatives North. This comes from the practices we have had over the years. We have seen the results if we do not insist on financial security on behalf of the companies that want to use the land. We do not have to be told that this is a bad idea. This is a good idea. This would give certainty to everyone involved in the process.All of these amendments went down and continue to go down. Discussion by Conservatives on the committee was practically nil. They did not want to talk about it. They were not instructed to talk about it. It really is an unfortunate fact of this legislation.I could go on and on about these amendments, but I will now move on to the bill itself. (1235)Parts of the bill implement long-standing commitments Canada has made under land claims agreements, most of them signed in the 90s, some under the Mulroney government and some under the Liberal government. It should really have been the Liberals who developed the legislation as part of the land claims implementation process. However, like so many other things, the Liberals just did not get around to it. When they did produce drafts, as the minister has pointed out, they were not successful. Because of the Liberals' failure to complete their work in Nunavut, the land use planning process has been muddling on for 20 years. Meanwhile, on the other side, in the Northwest Territories, the lack of a surface rights board has had absolutely no impact. In the absence of a surface rights board, an ad hoc system of arbitration panels was set up to deal with land access issues. In their 20-plus years of existence, only one application to resolve an access dispute has been filed, but it did not even proceed. In fact, even with this legislation in place, it would be unlikely that the board would be used. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said to the committee: “[I]t probably won't be asked to do very much”. To paraphrase Norman Snowshoe, vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, testifying at the committee on the bill, what is the rush? Where is the problem? In fact, Mr. Snowshoe went on to say that they could have said more about the bill, but they do not have the resources to do a proper job of analyzing what the government is up to. Most of the other land claims groups and the groups in unsettled areas simply do not have the time to put into the kind of consultation required to determine whether this is in their interests or not. The government's response is that we need to get this done for devolution. Devolution is an important aspect of moving forward in the north. There is no doubt about that. Certain agreements have to be in place. However, we have time. The Conservatives chose to lump these two bills together. The surface rights board act probably should have been brought forward at a later time, when more aspects of the devolution deal were fully understood by northerners. There has been very little public input, to this day, about devolution. When we talk about a bill that has to be done before devolution, we are talking about something that actually impacts on how devolution is going to turn out. Why do we have this rush now to put this in before devolution? Really, it should be part of the devolution discussions. It could have been put into any of the other amendments that are going to be required for devolution at the time devolution comes forward. If the government is serious about devolution and is serious about moving it forward, as it has said, then certainly, the NWT surface rights board act could have been dealt with at that time. It could have been part of that package. We are really talking about a bill that is dealing with two regions of the country: NWT and Nunavut. If the bill was for these two regions of the country, why did the Conservatives consistently, and without any discussion, ignore all the recommendations for amendments that came forward from the legitimate groups that were witnesses in front of these committees? These were simple amendments. These people were not against the bill. They wanted to ensure that the bill would work correctly and would work for them and their interests. Surely, in this country, we can understand that. Should the Conservative MPs not have been saying how the people of the north got what they wanted from the legislation rather than that no one got what they wanted? I learned a long time ago that if no one is happy with the job one has done, one has done a poor job. This legislation for Nunavut is required. It is part of what has to happen in Nunavut. The fact that so many of the amendments came from Nunavut says that people in Nunavut are not going to be satisfied in the end with the job the legislation does. The NWT is close to a devolution agreement, according to press statements, but not according to any public process we have been able to identify that allows people in the Northwest Territories to understand what devolution actually is. However, Nunavut is still a long way from an agreement. Given these differences in where each territory is in the devolution process, why did we bundle the two acts together, implementing vastly different land claims requirements?(1240)As Kevin O'Reilly, of Alternatives North, submitted at committee:[W]e do not believe that placing several different implementation provisions in one bill is a proper approach. This makes amendments and meaningful debate difficult at best. We would have preferred for separate bills for each land claim area to allow for better consultation and opportunities for improvement. That is precisely why the government bundled these two acts together. It does not want to hear from Canadians. The Conservatives have an assumption that they are right, that they are the ones in charge, and that their rightness is self-evident. Therefore, every act they have put forward in this new Parliament, with their shiny new majority, is perfect, and anyone who says otherwise is not really a good Canadian. As a northerner and a person who listened to the northerners, I would say that we did not get this bill completely right. We have not dealt with what the northerners want in it. We have a requirement for this bill, and it will move forward. What gives me hope is that the other day, the Premier of the Northwest Territories indicated in a northern newspaper article that he was under the understanding that the surface rights board act would become NWT legislation after devolution. If that is the case, and it does become legislation that the Northwest Territories legislature can amend, then that act will only be imperfect for as long as the people of the north decide it is. That is a positive aspect. If the devolution agreement goes as the premier said, and the legislation will actually be transferred to the government of the Northwest Territories, then it will be our responsibility to make it work right. I have no doubt that we will do that.Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Nunavut in the future. We have no devolution agreement in principle. It is my understanding that a negotiator has been appointed for devolution. That is a good sign. However, there was a negotiator appointed for devolution in the Northwest Territories probably a dozen years ago or more. That is not a hopeful sign for Nunavut. Nunavut needs its say over the legislation it uses in its territory. Let us hope that Nunavut can move forward with devolution as well so that it can make the choices it needs to make for itself.Aboriginal land claimsC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee amendmentsDownload responsibilityFundsGovernment billsInuitJob creationLand useNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest Territories Surface Rights BoardNunavut Planning CommissionNunavut TerritoryNunavut Tunngavik IncorporatedThird reading and adoptionLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLindaDuncanEdmonton—Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the topic of participant funding was well understood by all the groups that spoke to us from Nunavut. They understand it was a good idea to include it in there. There was unanimity when we asked the different witnesses if they would support including participant funding in there. We are talking about a population diffused over 33 communities over 1.7 million square kilometres, a huge area. These people need resources to accomplish almost anything: the travel budgets, the need for consultants. The cost of these things goes up dramatically in the north. We want small communities to respond correctly and appropriately because, if they do not, then confusion just reigns. Without participant funding, we are not going to see the certainty around the projects that we could with participant funding, so it is a very important part of what environmental assessment does. We know the government is fiscally very conservative. However, was it simply the money that stopped the Conservatives from going along with the participant funding, or was it something else? They would not indicate to us by standing up and speaking to these amendments. There was silence on the other side.Aboriginal peoplesC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment assistanceGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritoryThird reading and adoptionLindaDuncanEdmonton—StrathconaRayBoughenPalliser//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my fellow committee member here. However, in reality what we heard from Chief Roy Fabian was somewhat different. He participated in those hearings and said that he really got nothing from them. Interestingly enough, when the parliamentary secretary was talking about whether there should have been aboriginal representation on these committees—which is the case in the Yukon with its surface rights board where there is guaranteed aboriginal participation—the parliamentary secretary indicated that traditional knowledge would be part of it.However, when we actually read the bill, we found that it was not an absolute. They could either be experienced in land and environment or traditional knowledge. Really what the parliamentary secretary said was a compromise to the aboriginal participation and, out of these sessions that were taking place on consultation, there really turned out to be nothing at all. Aboriginal peoplesC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritoryPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionRayBoughenPalliserCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are two different situations. In Nunavut, the five-year review is an essential element that should have been included in this bill. My own personal experience with federal legislation on land use and environmental assessment says that there are going to be problems with the bill that will come up very quickly. The thought that the Conservatives would not support the review says to me that they are really not open to change. They are really not interested in anything other than their blinkered view of how legislation should work.My hope lies with the Government of the Northwest Territories, if what the premier said was correct. The legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories is going to be the place where combinations can be made properly. That is where this power should reside in the end and, hopefully, will.C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNorthwest TerritoriesNunavut TerritoryPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDavidWilksKootenay—Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, getting things wrong in legislation that deals with projects and environmental assessments is opening oneself up to going to court. Court would eat up a lot more costs and time than a review of legislation. The argument brought forward in committee not by Conservative members but, to a great extent, by government officials who seem to be running interference for the government, which is fair enough, just does not stand up.C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritoryThird reading and adoptionDavidWilksKootenay—ColumbiaCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on this issue and for the work she did in committee, along with the official opposition. We presented many amendments that should have been listened to in a better fashion.I would like the hon. member's understanding of why the Conservative members refuse to really even talk about these amendments. We would think, after the amendments were presented by witnesses before the committee, friendly witnesses, not hostile witnesses, that there would have been a more fruitful dialogue on committee.Does my hon. colleague have any explanation for the silence that came from the government side?C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritoryThird reading and adoptionCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul'sCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his great experience with this segment of our society, which makes his words even more powerful.The Conservatives have a thing about amendments. With regard to Bill C-47, some 50 amendments were put forward. Most of them came from northerners, and the bill was on the north. Most of the amendments came from witnesses from across the north, who brought them forward in amendment form, and that made the body of the amendments that were put forward. None of them were voted for by the Conservatives, of course.I want to clarify something with respect to these amendments that were brought forward. What was the position of many of the witnesses before the committee as to these amendments?C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceThird reading and adoptionJean-FrançoisLaroseRepentignyJean-FrançoisLaroseRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.We can see quite clearly, through the work that has been done by our side of the House in exposing it, how difficult it was to get any amendments to this bill and how difficult it was to deal with the real issues that witnesses in front of the committee brought forward. This is a pattern that the Conservative government in its majority has worked on pretty hard. It exists in almost every committee of this House.While I support the need to modernize the workplace of the RCMP, this bill does not do enough to reach that objective. My colleagues on this side of the House have gone through the process and raised many valid issues and complaints.As a person from the northern regions of Canada where the RCMP is the only police force, and having lived there all of my life, I see that there is really a requirement in small communities across the north for RCMP officers to have the opportunity to have a very direct relationship with others that they can get hold of in order to deal with the kinds of grievances that may arise in very small detachments. I just do not see that this bill is adequate to deal with that.Having said that, I want to focus on two proposed new subsections of the act that maybe have not received much attention and that I think are very interesting subsections of the bill. We need to look at subsection 31(1.3) and subsection 31(1.4).Section 31 of the act sets out when an RCMP member may make a grievance and sets out limitations to when an officer may not make a grievance.Proposed subsection 31(1.3) reads:A member is not entitled to present a grievance relating to any action taken under any instruction, direction or regulation given or made by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.In other words, officers who refuse to carry out an unlawful order can be disciplined up to and including dismissal from the force, and they would not be able to complain that they are being punished for refusing to obey the law.This section could also mean that RCMP officers who blow the whistle on illegal orders would also be subject to discipline, including dismissal, and would have no right to complain that they were being disciplined for revealing illegal activities inside the RCMP, even if they were under the instruction of the government—especially if they were under the instruction of the government.Retired RCMP officer Rob Creasser, spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, said:It places RCMP members in an untenable situation when they are being directed...to break Canadian or international law.Proposed new subsection 31(1.4) reads: For the purposes of subsection (1.3), an order made by the Governor in Council is conclusive proof of the matters stated in the order in relation to the giving or making of an instruction, direction or regulation by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.In other words, the cabinet, a small group of like-minded politicians meeting in secret, would determine which laws the RCMP would have to follow and which laws the RCMP would break, and what those mean.Gail Davidson, executive director for Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, describes this clause as very dangerous, saying: Police officers have special powers...to use force and to deprive people of their liberty, and the reason they have those powers is to keep the public peace.Keeping the public peace means ensuring that the laws are upheld, and this is legitimate laws and the rule of law.Some of the dangers in here are that these clauses could be used to condone torture and the use of information gathered through torture. Torture and the use of information gained through torture are against both Canadian law and international law. However, once enforced, this bill would negate these laws.Upholding the law and the rule of law is something the Minister of Public Safety does not appreciate. With his directions to the RCMP, the Canadian Border Services and CSIS, he has instructed them to use information gained through torture.Last November Surrey, B.C., RCMP Constable Lloyd Pinsent circulated a paper he wrote with the title, “The Terrorists Have Won. RCMP Ordered to Accept Torture-Tainted Information”.In his paper, Constable Pinsent lays out how Bill C-42, combined with the Minister of Public Safety's direction that it is okay to use information gathered through torture, essentially ordered the RCMP to break the law.(1720)Mr. Pinsent wrote: While the direction from Minister Toews is in contravention of existing Canadian and international law, under [Bill C-42’s] section 31. (1.4) the order is to be viewed as conclusive proof and questions about the legitimacy of the order are not allowed either....What we have here is a situation that can lead to abuse in the future. Why did the Conservative government decide to put this particular aspect into the accountability act, such as they call it? In other words, RCMP members are not accountable here, cannot be accountable and cannot stand up and speak the truth about what is happening to them or how they feel about the imposition of illegal practices upon them through an order of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can make that decision in secret, based on its desire to ensure what it considers to be the safety and security of Canada. This smacks of a police state, and I think everybody would agree to that. In this country, we always have a need for people to deal with illegal behaviour. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.Therefore, with regard to the minister's attempt to justify torture and the use of information gained from torture, any such use or activities are illegitimate under Canada's international legal obligations. However, considering recent actions, the Conservative government has little respect for the rule of law. In June 2012, the UN Committee Against Torture released a report on Canada's compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture. In this report, the committee raised serious concerns with the Conservative's laissez-faire attitude toward torture saying that it could result in violations of article 15 of the convention. However, Bill C-42 would give more authority for any government to act in a way that is improper and could lead to Canada's reputation being tarnished before the world. It could lead to great human rights abuses. It could lead to a number of other things, such as the need for illegal wiretaps and information collection, and all kinds of activities that could take place in the name of the security of this country. These are very serious issues.In 2006, Justice Dennis O'Connor, in his report on the events relating to Maher Arar, recommended:Policies should include specific directions aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.These sections in Bill C-42 would go against that recommendation. These sections would create a situation in which the government would have the ability to direct the police force in a way that is inappropriate. Here we have a proposed law that would essentially make it legal for the police to break the law, and if they choose not to break the law, they may be dismissed without the right to a grievance.This is supposed to be legislation about modernizing the RCMP workplace. However, these clauses would take it backward in time and should not have been put into the legislation. It should have been debated in a different fashion. Perhaps the laws could have been amended to provide some security to Canadians. However, when it comes to viewing these clauses in the bill and the thought of the Conservative government overriding civil rights in the name of national security, we must ask these questions: Did the terrorists win? Has the Canadian state acquiesced?AccountabilityC-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsDisciplinary measuresGovernment billsGrievancesNational securityPolice officersRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceThird reading and adoptionTortureJeanRousseauCompton—StansteadPaulDewarOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have addressed my remarks to one particular section of the legislation that I find to be unacceptable, and I am sure many other people would look at it in that fashion. Having met with the RCMP over many years here on different occasions, I feel very strongly the RCMP needs a union or an association that could protect the individual rights of the RCMP members. Until that happens, we will have the situation we have now. Thousands of grievances are backlogged, and RCMP officers are unhappy. There is no opportunity for people to deal with the kinds of situations in which they find themselves in the workplace and there is no intermediary on their side. How can people work in that kind of environment? How can they do their jobs in the kind of risk-oriented work that police officers have to take on every day, with the stress and the strain they have to deal with, without some measure of support that is legitimate and is there for them when they have troubles or situations where they need to have someone on their side? We can create any law we want. Without giving the police forces, our RCMP, the opportunity to have the same rights as other Canadians and other Canadian workers, this simply will not work.C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceThird reading and adoptionPaulDewarOttawa CentreBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodTaxationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada's latest report shows that consumer costs in the north have risen twice as fast as elsewhere in the country. The report shows that the major factor increasing the price of food is the Conservative's own nutrition north program. This flawed program has stuck northerners with overpriced, over-packaged, poor-quality food. Clearly, the government has to take action to reduce the high cost of living in the north.The NDP has long called for a 50% increase to the northern residence tax deduction. Will the government include such a measure in its upcoming budget?Consumer productsFood and drinkNorthern CanadaNorthern residents deductionNutrition North Canada programOral questionsPrice determinationStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—BellechasseBernardValcourtHon.Madawaska—Restigouche//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this tremendous resolution that has been brought forward by our member for Trinity—Spadina.When we talk about infrastructure, most Canadians, depending on where they live, think of the needs of big cities. However, Canada's rural and remote municipalities have infrastructure needs just as great as, or greater than, those faced by cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, but are quite clearly without the same political leverage or resources needed to accomplish those things.As a member from one of the most remote parts of Canada, a former long-term mayor and the president of the NWT Association of Communities, I know just how great the infrastructure challenge is to northern communities. It is composed of a number of different things. Appearing before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in 2009, David Austin, representing the Association of Yukon Communities, stated:...we need to recognize that it is not possible to construct infrastructure in Yukon at costs approximating those of southern centres. The shortness of the season and the lack of skilled trades people in some specific trades are factors. The distance from major markets...transportation costs for materials, and economies of scale are difficult to achieve in the Yukon's relatively small economy.His comments can be applied to the rest of the north: to the northern territories, to the northern aboriginal communities across the country and to northern parts of all the provinces. Probably 300 communities across Canada could be called rural and remote.Yellowknife, the capital of the Northwest Territories, currently has a well-documented infrastructure deficit of approximately $67 million, meaning that there is this much infrastructure that is in dire need of replacement. We live in a very difficult environment where the costs are high and where replacement becomes necessary because of climate change and the nature of where we are living.Yellowknife mayor Mark Heyck recently stated:...I believe we need to invest more in maintaining our municipal infrastructure than we have in the past, and we need to carefully prioritize our capital projects to put more emphasis on critical infrastructure....We are not talking about things that are just for the sake of esthetics or simple things like that, but things that are absolutely required to run a small city.He went on to say:We also need to be active in territorial and national lobbying efforts through the NWT Association of Communities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to ensure the territorial and federal governments are adequately assisting municipalities with the cost of addressing our infrastructure deficit.Just as Yellowknife probably helps out the rest of the country with its great mining industry located there, with the value per capita of the gross domestic product so high, right across northern Canada we are expected to be shouldering the burden of the GDP in this country to a greater extent than any other part of the country. We need to have proper infrastructure to accomplish that.The 2008-2012 business plan of the Northwest Territories Department of Public Works and Services is even more direct about the infrastructure needs in the territories. It stated:The fiscal reality is that the GNWT's infrastructure needs exceed, by a wide margin, its financial ability to address them. Therefore, the GNWT is challenged to explore broad and innovative approaches to infrastructure planning, acquisition, usage and maintenance.The only trouble is innovation can only go so far, meaning that we simply need to invest.To meet the NWT's infrastructure need, the territorial government has had to borrow. Because of the borrowing limitations imposed by Ottawa, it ran into serious difficulties. The NWT Minister of Finance stated in this year's territorial budget address a week or so ago:...every dollar spent on infrastructure is borrowed money, bringing us closer to our borrowing limit and leaving no flexibility to respond to a potential economic downturn or make strategic investments to support economic development and grow our economy.Therefore, the NWT is in a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation, and the future is not well taken care of.In Nunavut, the infrastructure deficit is just as great. The Nunavut government estimates that it will require $6 billion over the next 20 years to meet its existing infrastructure needs.(1555)It has a need for 3,600 more housing units. It needs a deepwater port at Iqaluit and other communities. We had a tremendous presentation this morning at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the incredible lack of transportation infrastructure in Nunavut.Nunavut needs to find alternate sources of energy. It is currently using 33.4 million litres of diesel for electrical generation. That is unaffordable to that area and will continue to be unaffordable for the future.Iqaluit, a city of 7,000 people, has a $160 million infrastructure deficit. They may be able to scrape together, as the mayor said, the $20 million for badly needed upgrades, but they cannot even come close to addressing the issues that are in front of them.Earlier this month, the Premier of Nunavut was here in Ottawa lobbying for $500 million over five years for only two projects. That did not go very far. Those are the kinds of situations our communities and our governments across northern Canada are in. We are expected to be the economic generators of the future, but the investment has to be made now.It is unfortunate that politics comes into infrastructure investment. We need a clear strategy to move Canadian infrastructure into the 21st century. I served for five years on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' green municipal fund investment, and there was an opportunity across the country to identify good investments that made sense for the environment and made sense for the long-term costs to communities. That information is still available through this great organization, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We can make a difference with our infrastructure, but we have to take the proper steps.Improving infrastructure is more than just roads, more than ditches and dumps, more than those things. It is setting our communities up so that they can move to a green future. That is really important. When we invest in something that is not sustainable, that investment hangs around for 40 years making trouble, so we do need to be smart and clever and invest in the proper things. Our municipalities across this country have taken the effort to understand how those investments are made and are likely to be the best ones to lead us forward in the future in making investments. It is incredibly important for the federal government to recognize the partnership that should be in place with the municipalities when it comes to investment in infrastructure.I want to quote the former mayor of the City of Yellowknife, Gord Van Tighem, who spent many years in the position. He said, “In towns that have good water, affordable housing, power, and jobs, people can live healthy lifestyles.” Healthy lifestyles should be the goal for all Canadians. The government could take real action on meeting Canada's infrastructure deficit if it would only take a strategic approach instead of funding projects politically to gain the most political advantage. We really have to move away from that. We have to move to a system that allows municipalities to make logical, rational choices about the future according to the best possible practices that have been identified for accomplishing our goals. Sustainability is so important. We cannot leave our grandchildren with this infrastructure deficit. We cannot accept that our grandchildren will still be trying to go to work in situations that are not cleverly thought out by this generation. This generation has a responsibility to leave something better than we have to date. That should be our goal. I hope the Conservatives will support this resolution and that we can work unanimously to build a better Canada.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)Cities and townsInfrastructureNorthwest TerritoriesOpposition motionsPrioritiesDonDaviesVancouver KingswayElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure of the country is like the clothes we wear. It is like the shoes on our feet. If we wear cheap shoes, they wear out quickly and we end up with foot problems later in life. If we do not dress properly and conserve energy, we might find ourselves getting sick more often. Everything we do in our lives is important. We are facing challenges now that go beyond the borders of Canada and apply to the whole world. Therefore, we have a responsibility not only to Canada to fix our infrastructure and to do a good job, but we also need to set examples and join the rest of the world in working very hard come to grips with what the proper infrastructure is and how we can live our lives in a better fashion so we will leave something for our grandchildren to work with.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)Cities and townsInfrastructureOpposition motionsPrioritiesElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are in the House of Commons. We are not shopkeepers. We are not counting our pennies and handing them out to people one by one. We are here to think for Canadians. We are here to provide an integrated plan for this country. We are not here to simply be concerned about whether we took $2 from here and put it over there. We have to think about the future. If Parliament cannot live up to that, we should go home. We should not be here unless we care deeply about what the future means to this country. It is not a question of making sure we get jobs this year. That is important, there is no doubt about it, but we have to have an idea of where this country needs to go in the future so that it works for Canadians. Without that, we are lost.Budget 2013 (March 21, 2013)Cities and townsInfrastructureOpposition motionsPrioritiesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Rail Freight Service ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss the bill, Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.As the previous transport critic for this party during the 2008 to 2011 era, through that time I recognized that there was a great demand across the country for changes that would assist shippers in dealing with the duopoly of the rail system in Canada and the conditions that occurred.Quite clearly, the concerns were greater among the smaller shippers than among the larger shippers. Therefore, the ones that could command the greatest use of the railway had greater opportunities to strike better deals. The problems lay in a stronger fashion with those that did not have the quantity and the continuity of freighting that would attract the rail systems.I remember meeting with the pulse association, people who provide agricultural products that are not grain but beans, soy, peas and that measure of agricultural product, which is growing considerably in Canada but in smaller batches in different areas across the country. Their problems with getting their product through the rail system were paramount to them. They said they could not deal with the system as it is right now. The types of producers, the locations of those producers across the country and the nature of the product meant that the rail companies were not attracted to them as customers as much as they were to larger producers. I will be very interested to see how it will play out across western Canada now with the loss of the single desk for grain, how that will play out with small producers, smaller aggregations of those who are moving grain. The Conservatives sold the idea of getting rid of the single desk on the basis of enabling grain to be moved to different places by the producers in a fashion that would allow them to value-add to their product. Let us see what happens when this occurs in a system where the need for freight is paramount, where we have to move the product and where farmers are not protected by the larger system that existed under the single desk. We will see what that does and how it works. I am sure the committee will hear representation on that matter as well, as it moves forward.In looking at the rail system, we have heard a lot of talk about infrastructure. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the great investments that the government has made in the rail system. I would raise, for instance, the investment the government is making in one of the big problems with our rail system, the level crossings. There are some 1,400 level crossings in this country. They are being added to incrementally by municipalities all across the country. The Conservatives identified $27 million a year over five years to invest in level crossings. When we do the math, that does not turn out to be something that will really solve the problem we have with level crossings. Some level crossings can cost between $30 million and $40 million to fix. These are major requirements in the rail system.If we take a good look at it, the rail companies are not primarily responsible for what has happened with level crossings. This is a co-operative effort that extends across governments, provincial highway authorities and municipal governments. Everyone has a hand in level crossings. Why does the federal government have to play a role? The federal government can be the final arbitrator there. With the profits rail companies are making, they should be a big part of this as well.(1700)Of course, the government does not collect taxes in a decent fashion from corporations that actually make profits, and cannot reinvest for the public good and the good of those corporations. The chances of the infrastructure issues, that is, of rail being fixed across this country, are very remote if the present spending level of the federal government continues.I am glad that the NDP has such a strong transport critic today, one who has pushed very hard on these issues. The service agreement review went through and finished in 2011. Members are now seeing an act in front of Parliament, Bill C-52.The first part of the bill sets up terms and conditions for contracts for railways and shippers. If a shipper wants to enter into a contract with a rail company, it can describe the traffic to which it relates, the services requested by the shipper in respect to the traffic, and the undertaking the shipper is prepared to give to the rail company with respect to traffic for services. How will one make sure that the rail companies will be well served when their cars arrive? How will all of this fit together?Contracts, of course, do not apply to written agreements already in place. A company that has already established a written contract with a rail company is not available to deal with this under this legislation. They are locked in.In the case of many of the larger producers, that may be to their advantage. They do not have to renegotiate anything. The ones that provide a lot of freight movement have a deal set up. Seeing what is happening in the industry here with the failure of the pipelines that have been proposed for Canada, I would say that we are going to see greater rail traffic carrying oil and gas products across this country. That may change the dynamics of the rail system as well. The larger producers may find themselves competing with other very large producers as well. We will see how that plays out.The second part of the bill deals with arbitration. Once one has established a contract or is unable to agree on a contract, there is a process of arbitration. That is good because, of course, it is sometimes very difficult to come to agreements. Small producers in a remote location are looking for the rail company to arrive in a good fashion with the cars. They are going to leave them there. The cars are going to be in good shape. They are going to take the cars away after they have them filled. There are many variations that have to be examined in a contract between two parties that carry out this kind of work. Is the shipper going to be ready to provide the product to fill all those cars when they are delivered at the site? If they are not, is there some measure of compensation to the company for leaving the cars there longer? If the company does not supply the cars in a good fashion, is there a way to compensate the shipper, who may be backlogged at the receiving area with the other mode of transportation that caused them to bring it to the railway? These are complex, detailed issues that have to be worked out between shippers and the rail company. Of course they will require some arbitration.What is the hammer that the company keeps under this legislation when it comes to negotiating or dealing with arbitration? Under proposed subsection 169.31(4), the following applies:For greater certainty, neither a rate for the movement of the traffic nor the amount of a charge for that movement or for the provision of incidental services is to be subject to arbitration.(1705)There is the hammer for the company. It can set the rate for the cars sitting in the dock. It can set the rate for the movement of the material out of the area. It can decide the nature of the movement, the volume of the movement taking place, and how cost effective that is with its service charges that fit over top of that. All of those issues are not going to be subject to arbitration.The company holds a very strong hand there when it comes to exactly what it is going to cost to do the work. Still, the arbitration should take into account the rates. In any business arrangement, the rates are very important. They cannot simply say “We are going to have a service contract, and you do not get to talk about the rates. The only thing you can talk about is what is going to happen”. Those two things have to work together.The government, by excluding that from arbitration, has given the rail companies a very strong position in Bill C-52. I hope that it will be seen in committee as something that needs to be worked on. There needs to be some work done to make this fairer, more equitable to all of those concerned, especially the small producers across this country who do not have the leverage to make the deals, as was the case even before this bill.After this bill there should be some leverage for those small companies so they can make sure that services are being provided to them in a good fashion at a reasonable rate. That is what we should be doing in government, being fair to both sides. The basis of government is trying to come up with solutions that work for all parties.Some of the other concerns here also fit with small companies, the small shippers, such as the degree of difficulty they may have in working in arbitration, the timeframes that are outlined, the process that is outlined, all of which are very complex and very expensive. The costs will have to be borne by the shipper. The cost of the arbitration is to be split equally between the shipper and the rail company in all cases, according to this legislation. How does that work? If the arbitration is in favour of the small shipper, they still have to pay the piper for the work they have done.What I would like to see in this is some means of establishing rates and conditions that would apply across the country, so that some kind of equivalency develops among the arbitration systems and that, across the country, what is decided in one place has some relevance to what is going on in another, so that we have some fairness in the system.I do not see that yet. Perhaps some of my Conservative colleagues who may have some ideas about that may want to express them. I think it is more likely to be taken up in committee, however. This bill needs a lot of work.What is the record of this majority Conservative government in offering up amendments? I have to say it is abysmal. It is totally abysmal. These people do not believe in amendments. The Conservatives believe that what they put forward is good enough for the country. They are in charge and they know what is right. This is what has happened with almost every single piece of legislation that has gone through the House to date.Where are the amendments? When I worked in the transport committee, when there was not a Conservative majority, we worked together, we looked at the issues and we came up with solutions that were mutually agreeable. Then we created amendments that we all agreed with.Transportation is a fundamental and vital service to this country. It is not something that should be dealt with by parties working against each other. I was always very pleased with the previous transport committee chair, the member for Brandon—Souris, who was very fair and understood that transportation was a vital and important part of this country, which needed to be expressed as such.This bill should be amended. It should be considered very carefully for what it actually accomplishes and what it should accomplish.Agreements and contractsArbitration and arbitratorsC-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)Freight transportationGovernment billsGrain and grain growingLevel crossingsPrice determinationRail transportation and railwaysSecond readingShippersTransportationTransportation infrastructureWheat and wheat growingMatthewDubéChambly—BorduasLindaDuncanEdmonton—Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Rail Freight Service ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the committee could perhaps start with the witnesses who could talk about equality and fairness within the system. We might actually want to look at economists, perhaps some people who study these issues around the world, how rail companies work in this fashion, so that we could see clearly what is fair, what is likely to be fair, and how to present that in committee in a good fashion. I would say that would be a first step for this bill: to examine the ethics of the bill and how it would apply to the different parties who would be affected by this.Then we would want to take that understanding and go to the actual shippers and make sure that we cover the wide variety of shippers in this country, geographically and by the type and size of material they are moving through the country, because they are all very significant players. I would say that would be an interesting formation of the committee. However, whether the committee is ready to put that kind of effort into this remains with that committee to decide.Agreements and contractsC-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)Government billsRail transportation and railwaysSecond readingShippersTransportationLindaDuncanEdmonton—StrathconaDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Rail Freight Service ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, there were two questions. I will attempt to deal with the first one.Of course, without government raising money, we cannot reinvest in things that require investment to increase productivity. If we increased productivity in the rail lines, we would then increase the profits of those rail lines. They could provide that to their shareholders. There is a symbiotic relationship among all the things we do in this country. There is no separation into hard and fast units. Rail, and the way it has developed in Canada, has engaged most segments of our society. That is why government has a very important role. However, if government does not collect the money, it cannot invest. It is pretty straightforward.There may be North American rates. However, quite clearly, there is also the provision of incidental services. I am sure that there is a lot of fudge room within those rates. Nothing can be delivered at the same price in the same time. Volume counts. The type of delivery and the conditions make a difference. All these things add to cost or take away from cost. To not have them in arbitration, to not have the finesse of the system available for arbitration, I think is something that will inevitably lead to abuse.Agreements and contractsArbitration and arbitratorsC-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)Government billsPrice determinationRail transportation and railwaysSecond readingTransportationDeanDel MastroPeterboroughKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Rail Freight Service ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think arbitration, by its nature, means that we want someone who understands the nature of fairness within the system. To have that, it has to be someone who fully understands the system but is not engaged in one interest or the other. There must be continuity, with the same logic applied to different areas of the country and the same methodology, which comes from continuity, in arbitration. I would say that if this system is going to be successful, it needs those qualities within the arbitration system. One is a dedication to fairness and the second is continuity.Agreements and contractsArbitration and arbitratorsC-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)Government billsRail transportation and railwaysSecond readingTransportationKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFair Rail Freight Service ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a previous transport critic, I faced many, many interest groups over the years from 2008 to 2011 wanting to see this in place, as well as the absolute intransigence of the government at that time to put it forward. The nanosecond was stretched out quite long over that time.What has changed? The Canadian Wheat Board has now gone. We are probably dealing with a situation where there is more pressure on the government to act for the small concerns on the Prairies, and I think that is good, but if we are taking this to committee, we really need to take a look at what has happened to the wheat and grain industry across this country since the demise of the Wheat Board and that single desk, which had allowed more pressure on the rail industry.C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)Freight transportationGovernment billsGrain handlingRail transportation and railwaysSecond readingTransportationNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodArctic CouncilInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, with the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, it looks like the Conservatives may once again tarnish Canada's reputation on the world stage. The effects of climate change and the massive loss of Arctic sea ice are creating urgent issues in the Arctic, which require international co-operation. However, last week in Norway the Arctic minister said Canada's focus will be on business.Why is the government wasting the world's time by using this important forum to advance corporate interests?ArcticEnvironmental protectionNorthern CanadaOral questionsRegional developmentGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague talked a lot about education because education is very important. However, I am a little troubled by the figures that he has given us in terms of the government investment. I come from the Northwest Territories where we handle capital investment in schools for about 33 communities, many of them small isolated communities. The cost of construction and maintenance of these schools far exceeds those in downtown Mississauga or in Brampton, Ontario. We are not talking the same thing. An investment of $275 million over this many years, when we have 600 reserves where the situation with the building was dire when the government came in, is simply not adequate.We built a school in Inuvik. Now that is a little larger a community, but the cost of that school was $120 million to build it properly so it would last for a significant length of time. Therefore, when the government talks about $275 million over a number of years and that it will do renovations and build some new schools, that is not a lot of schools for 600 reserves.If my hon. colleague were really interested in getting our support for these types of efforts, he would have to increase that by an exponential factor, that investment over five years in first nation reserves' schools.Aboriginal rightsBudgetary policyEconomic conditionsOpposition motionsKyleSeebackBrampton WestKyleSeebackBrampton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.The motion before us reads:That the House, recognizing the broad-based demand for action, call on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of First Nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of Budget 2013, and to commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.I want to take some time to focus on the Northwest Territories, which is a singularly unique area of Canada where we have settled and unsettled claims. We found the best way to improve the economic situation of our indigenous people in the Northwest Territories is to settle land resources and self-government claims.In the parts of the Northwest Territories where the claims have been settled, people have increased prosperity and the private sector, which wants to invest there, has certainty in the regulatory process. That is very clear. The opposite is true for those areas of the Northwest Territories, which still have unsettled claims. In testimony before the members of aboriginal affairs and northern development committee during hearings in Yellowknife on Bill C-47, the NWT and Nunavut Mining Associations and the NWT Chamber of Commerce both stressed the value of having settled claims. There are some examples of how settled claims can improve the economic situation of first nations people, Inuit people, and I will speak to two of them. One is the Inuvialuit. The Inuvialuit were the first to settle their claims in the Northwest Territories. They did a very good job of it in 1984, with excellent claim settlement. They took over large pieces of their traditional territory. They got surface and subsurface rights in the oil-rich Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea area. They were in a position to take advantage of resource development, resource exploration in that area, and they have built an amazing Inuvialuit Development Corporation, which owns outfits like Canadian North Aviation. Members may have flown on it themselves. It owns the Northern Transportation Company Limited. It has investments and opportunities for Inuvialuit people throughout the Northwest Territories, at all levels of employment.It is through this settlement that the Inuvialuit were to get their heads into economic development, rather than spending their time trying to fight with the federal government over land claim settlements.We could talk about the Tlicho government, settled under the Liberal government in 2004. Its land extends through diamond-rich areas of the Northwest Territories. It has rights to large areas of land, surface, subsurface. It has opportunities on that land. What has it done with them? It has created the Tlicho Development Corporation. That development corporation, in less than 10 years, has gross revenue in excess of $130 million, employing 800 people. This is the kind of effort that could be made by first nations when they achieve control over traditional lands and territories, not when they are stuck on reserves, not when they do not have the opportunity to participate fully in the resource economy.However, this is not the case in the areas of the Northwest Territories that do not have settled claims. In the Dehcho and the Akaitcho regions, both incredibly rich areas of the Northwest Territories, the Dehcho with its gas deposits, the Akaitcho once again with mining and great opportunities as well, negotiations on land claims are stalled. They have been stalled with the government for many years.Much of the fault lies with the federal government through actions like continually changing negotiators, never giving negotiators the ability to make decisions, revisiting areas which have been agreed to in negotiations and changing negotiation mandates. These are all things that completely obfuscate the system.In these two regions there is much uncertainty. The investment is difficult. Now there are brave companies, and I speak of Avalon as one company that is going through the environment assessment process. It won awards for its ability to talk to the first nations in those regions and to bring them into the process themselves.We see industry taking over the role of government in providing the authority to first nations to make decisions on their land. That is what it takes in unsettled areas.(1340)Chief Roy Fabian of the K'atl'odeeche First Nation recently told the aboriginal affairs committee the following during hearings on Bill C-47 on the Surface Rights Board Act: This legislation is a serious matter that strikes at the heart of Treaty 8 and jeopardizes our attempt at reconciliation with Canada. The legislation appears to be an attempt to circumvent our land claims process and undermine our authority over our lands....I want to make it clear that this Bill, if passed, will not be recognized as valid law on Katlodeeche territory. If the federal government attempts to impose this legislation on our Treaty land then we will consider our legal options to oppose this legislation and resist every attempt to grant an access order on our land.Where does that leave industry? Where does that leave certainty? Where are we going with that? That is not working, is it?Chief Fabian highlights a key element in current federal-aboriginal relations, namely that federal action or inaction is causing a rising sense of dissatisfaction among Canada's first nations, its aboriginal people, leading to movements like Idle No More. It is leading directly there. It is leading to a movement that we can all get behind: we should not all be idle on this issue. We should not be obfuscating. We should not be trying to make this a harder thing to accomplish, to get land claims settled in this country.Canada's aboriginal people are no longer content to just sit patiently while Ottawa gets around to finally addressing their concerns. They are idle no more. Congratulations to first nations. Congratulations should come from all Canadians. We are glad they are idle no more. We are glad they are standing up for their rights. We are glad they are standing up for the land and the environment. These are things that have to be done. They are not getting done by the government. First nations can provide the leadership.Canada's first nations want full settlement of their claims on traditional territories and will not wait while federal negotiators play games. They will be idle no more when it comes to getting these claims settled.Canada's aboriginal people want to be treated fairly. They want to build the economies of their communities and regions. They are not opposed to development. I have shown that. They want to be full partners in development have a say in how it occurs. However because of delays by the federal government, they are no longer willing to wait.Canadians should get behind them. Let us all be idle no more when it comes to first nation issues.Aboriginal land claimsAboriginal rightsBudgetary policyC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsEconomic conditionsEconomic developmentInuitLand useMining industryNorthwest TerritoriesOil and gasOpposition motionsSplitting speaking timeTlicho GovernmentKyleSeebackBrampton WestRomeoSaganashAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, when I travel through the Northwest Territories to the different communities, I see that those that have settled claims have relationships at the community and regional levels with all people. They are working with all people. That is how we get things done in Canada.Things are done in Canada from a position of having something to offer. When first nations have settled claims, when they have certainty on their land, they have something really tangible to offer. They can control that offer as well, tailoring it in a way that works for them.That is progress. That is going to make progress. That is what all Canadians want.I am landowner. I control the land that I have. I make decisions about it. I invest if I have to. I look for partners if I have to. These are things we do as Canadians. I want first nations to have all those abilities that we all have as Canadians, tied to what they have from their ancestors, what they have from their position on this land.Thirty times the courts have agreed with aboriginal people on land issues. Thirty times in a row. When are we going to wake up? When are we going to quit being so idle on these issues?Aboriginal rightsBudgetary policyEconomic conditionsOpposition motionsRomeoSaganashAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, at all levels first nations have had to recover from the many grievous wounds that have hurt their spirit. However, their spirit is going to recover.In a way, I am of the fundamental opinion that first nations provide and can exhibit the greatest opportunities for leadership among us in this country. That spirit of leadership shown over the last while needs to be accepted and nurtured by all Canadians, because it will make us a greater and better country in the world we live. Aboriginal rightsBudgetary policyEconomic conditionsOpposition motionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthFrancineRaynaultJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersNWT DayInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on NWT Day to celebrate the progressive people and government of the Northwest Territories. They know the key to prosperity is sustainability, protecting our fragile environment while carefully pursuing economic development. As part of this process the NWT government has put in place a number of unique, exciting and purposeful strategies. The biomass strategy leads the country in converting public and commercial buildings from expensive and polluting fuel oil to clean renewable energy. Canada's first solar energy strategy will reduce the diesel fuel used for electrical generation in our communities.The waters of the Northwest Territories remaining clean, abundant and productive for all time is the vision of the widely praised NWT water stewardship strategy. This strategy respects aboriginal rights and treaties and protects the values of all northerners when making decisions about NWT waters.Tonight the NWT is hosting a gala at the Château Laurier. I hope all members will join us and learn more about the Northwest Territories.Northwest TerritoriesStatements by MembersBradTrostSaskatoon—HumboldtGordonBrownLeeds—Grenville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIntergovernmental AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, after more than 10 years of negotiation, the Northwest Territories is on the edge of assuming jurisdiction over its lands, waters and immense natural resources.In order to accomplish this devolution, the House must amend a number of laws, including the Northwest Territories Act, which is the basis of all the power we currently have.As a courtesy to this House, can the minister give an indication of what other acts will have to be dealt with in order to provide the NWT with increased powers?Download responsibilityLand useLegislationNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsChristianParadisHon.Mégantic—L'ÉrableJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodIntergovernmental AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Northwest Territories are in Ottawa today. I am sure they would like to get an answer to at least one question, so here is another question.As part of the devolution process, the NWT must enact a package of legislation mirroring current federal laws governing our lands, waters and environment.Once this legislation has been enacted, will the NWT legislative assembly be able to amend these laws in order to improve them, or will we be stuck with what Ottawa dictates?Download responsibilityGovernment of the Northwest TerritoriesLand useLegislationNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island NorthJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodArctic CouncilInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, a confidential government document on chairing the Arctic Council makes no mention of issues such as loss of sea ice, oil spill prevention or fisheries management. Instead, it places too much emphasis on resource development in our north. When is this minister going to understand her new international duties cannot be wasted on a PR exercise for the Conservative big business agenda? Can she explain why is not living up to her duties, and this time without dismissing respected Inuit leader Mary Simon?Arctic CouncilEnvironmental protectionGovernment accountabilityNorthern CanadaOral questionsJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—NepeanGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodArctic CouncilInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not really have to answer any of those things.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!ArcticArctic CouncilGovernment policyInternational relationsNorthern CanadaOral questionsLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodArctic CouncilInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, St. Jerome's University Professor Whitney Lackenbauer, UBC research chair Michael Byers and former Canadian circumpolar ambassador Mary Simon have all raised concerns that the government will promote resource development only, rather than working with its international partners on vital issues, as my colleague has indicated.Mary Simon has said that “The issues have just escalated when you look at what’s happening now with climate change”. When will the Conservatives realize that their nationalistic, head-in-the-sand approach to the Arctic is counterproductive?ArcticArctic CouncilGovernment policyInternational relationsNorthern CanadaOral questionsAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Bill C-45—Time Allocation]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to my colleague across the way.Today, in The Globe and Mail, a study came out on Canadians' attitudes toward democracy which showed that over the past eight years there has been a substantial decline in their belief in the democracy that we hold in this Parliament.We have seen the government bring closure after closure on a multitude of issues, issues which, in some cases, had no time relevance at all. Does the Minister of State for Finance believe that moving forward with further closure would in any way assure the people of Canada that their democracy is in working shape?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsReport stageTime allocationTedMenziesHon.MacleodTedMenziesHon.Macleod//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have always considered it an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak to bills and to discuss matters of concern to Canadians.Today, though, when I stand to speak to the Conservatives' latest mammoth omnibus bill, which is being jammed through the House of Commons in the fashion of the last one, I feel that I am speaking at a point when our democracy is changing and not for the better. Standing here, I feel very sad and a little angry.The speed of the bill can only be due to one reason. The Conservatives want to move quickly so that the people of Canada do not have an opportunity to understand what the changes mean to our country. Very serious changes are being made to laws that will not be easily understood by Canadians until those laws are put in practice. I am speaking about the changes to the environmental system that have been made by the Conservatives over the past year.I will speak for a while on the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. With the exception of three oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers, the law will no longer apply to projects affecting waterways. This is being done for the convenience of developers who want to move ahead. It is not being done for the convenience of farmers and fishermen. We could have had a different law that would have taken care of the little problems in the system. That would have been a law that we would have all stood up and supported.Canadians are going to be outraged when their lakes and rivers, major waterways, are being damaged just so that a few quick bucks can be made. When we do not do a proper job on the environment, in the end all will pay, including industry and the Conservatives' friends.In the Northwest Territories, the Conservatives removed navigable waters protection from rivers such as the Liard River, the Peel River, the Hay River and the Slave River, all of which are used today for navigation purposes. In fact, on the Hay River is the largest docking facility north of 60. The facility includes the Canadian Coast Guard base for the western Arctic region, Northern Transportation Company Limited's barging terminal and the float plane base anchorage.Once the bill is passed, this particular river will no longer be under the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What is going on? Why did the Conservatives do this to a very important waterway for the people of the Northwest Territories?There is oil exploration on the upper reaches of the Hay River. That is where we can go if we want to find the answer to why the Hay River was taken out of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is the same reason that there will be no navigation protection for the Peel and Liard rivers. I am sure when a barge runs aground on one of these rivers, the owners will be happy to acknowledge their suffering is justified because the oil companies are not inconvenienced.With the Slave River, we know very well what that is about. We know that the Alberta business interests in Calgary, ATCO, are very interested in developing a 1,500 megawatt earth-fill dam across the Slave River. They have been after this for a long time.Eight-two per cent of the outflow from Alberta is in the Slave River, at 3,000 metres a second. This is not a farmer's stream. This is a major waterway that has supported navigation and transportation for 100 years. It is not in the bill. Why is it not there? Whose friends are being rewarded here? Now that it is not in the bill, does that mean that Alberta is solely responsible for any environmental assessment of the project?(1650)The changes to protecting Canada's natural beauty contained in Bill C-45 are part of a broader strategy to remove any wilderness protection. There were changes to the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the Conservatives' first massive omnibus budget bill, which they jammed through Parliament last spring. They rushed that job so much that they had to bring in amendments in Bill C-45 to try to deal with some of the problems that they created with their reckless moves with Bill C-38.Haste makes waste. When will Conservatives learn? I do not think they will learn because their agenda is not to protect Canada. Their agenda is to exploit Canada. Fair enough, just put it on the table and say it as it is.This is going to create so much uncertainty in industry because the current government will not be around after 2015 and we will be putting back the regulations that are required for the protection of the environment in Canada. How is that going to give certainty to industries?In Bill C-38, they removed the prohibition against the alteration, disruption—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresC-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsNavigable Waters Protection ActNorthwest TerritoriesOmnibus billsReport stageWladyslawLizonMississauga East—CooksvilleBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, another example of just how far the government is prepared to go to silence critics of its agenda occurred November 6 in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. At that point in time the legislative assembly members were debating a motion on whether they should review all the changes that were being made to environmental regulations in Canada and how they would affect the north. NWT MLA, Daryl Dolynny, described by Northern News Services as well known in Conservative Party circles, warned the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories that speaking out against gutting Canada's environmental laws by simply reviewing them would put in jeopardy projects such as devolution, the Inuvik-Tuk highway and the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic link.Imagine, we had a person threatening the economic viability of our territory because of a review of environmental legislation. I am sure someone with close ties to the Conservative Party would not be making these kinds of allegations unless he had something to back it up. What is going on in this country? What is going on with our democracy?Yesterday I spoke with the largest landowners in the NWT, the Dene, who expressed their disgust with the government's actions, which are all about making a quick buck from Canada's natural resources with no cares for the environmental damage that our children and grandchildren may have to deal with. We in the Northwest Territories have been there. We know what happens when proper environmental assessments are not done. We can see the damages. We see it in the mines and the failed projects that litter our territory from one end to the other. Those are things that could have been prevented, that could have been saved by proper environmental action.The Prime Minister boasted that we would not be able to recognize Canada when he gets done with it. Unfortunately, with bills such as Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, this is going to be the case. We will not understand it today. We will not understand it tomorrow, but our children will understand what these people are doing today.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresC-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsReport stageBruceStantonSimcoe NorthRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Marquette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie gas project has been approved. The reason that it is not being built is because the gas is not worth enough right now to put that pipeline down. If those people had gone ahead with that pipeline, it would be producing gas right now that would not be economic. What has happened? We are waiting. Some day that resource will be developed. Maybe my grandchildren will enjoy that. Why not? Why should this generation, the me generation, take it all off the land right now? What is it about those guys? Do they not see what the future has for our children? What is wrong with you? Wake up.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsMackenzie Valley PipelineReport stageRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—MarquetteBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, actually, we supported the Liberals at the committee. We supported their right to a vote and the votes were taken. That is the way democracy works. That does not change the problem that we have with the bill, nor does it t change what will happen with the bill.The Liberal Party is clutching at straws these days. I am sorry about that. It was once a great party but now it is not. Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresClause-by-clause studyCommittee amendmentsGovernment billsReport stageKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think back to the previous question from the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. He talked about the remarkable improvements that the Conservative government created in the environment. The Conservatives should recognize where those laws started. They did not start with the current government. The laws that they have brought in, now that they have a majority and can bring in the types of changes they want, will really affect the environment. Prior to this, for the six years with them in a minority position, they had to work pretty hard to make any changes to our good laws. We worked hard. The opposition worked in concert to ensure that the laws that were being put forward were at least somewhat reasonable over that timeframe. Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe if we had let them go then they would not have this majority today and we would not be suffering with this kind of nonsense.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsReport stageJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-NordElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs and Growth Act, 2012InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, we did refer solely to rivers in the Northwest Territories that we engage in navigation on. Those were removed from the act. Those were the only ones that I spoke to. Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsInland watersNorthwest TerritoriesReport stageElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsLarryMillerBruce—Grey—Owen Sound//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives want to work with other countries, there are many ways to do that. We know the north is particularly vulnerable to climate change. We see it every day. Canadians in the north and across this country are living, now, with the consequences of the Conservative inaction on climate change. Time and time again the government ignores opportunities to act. As chair of the Arctic Council, why will the minister not put climate change front and centre on that agenda going forward?ArcticClimate change and global warmingNorthern CanadaOral questionsPeterKentHon.ThornhillPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Financial Transparency ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, today we have before us Bill C-27, the so-called first nations financial transparency act. This is another example of how the Conservative government tells Canada's aboriginal people to do as it says, not as it does.At committee witness after witness spoke of how accountability and transparency are vital concepts to effective governance. First nations have accepted that and they want to implement that as well on their own, as nations and as governments. I think of the first nations in my own community. Salt River First Nation has gone through the process of developing transparency. It has it together and it put it together itself. The pride this first nation takes in what it does comes from the fact that it has self-actualized in this regard. Bill C-27 falls short in allowing first nations to stand for themselves as governments. It fails to develop workable government-to-government relationships. Instead, the bill treats aboriginal Canadians as wards of the state rather than being capable of governing themselves.The Canadian Bar Association in a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated:The [Canadian Bar Association's National Aboriginal Law] Section believes the proposed Bill would not improve the capacity of First Nations to assume control over their own affairs. By focusing only on the expenditures of First Nations, the proposed legislation fails to address larger systemic issues of funding and responsibility for those issues.The CBA goes on to say:Given First Nations’ inherent right to self-governance, dictating reporting requirements without sufficient consultation with First Nations is problematic. It fails to recognize the unique constitutional arrangements between First Nations and the federal government, and does little to move away from the paternalism which has historically defined this relationship.It adds:Ultimately, the Chief and Council should be accountable to the members of the First Nation, as those members are best positioned to say whether the salaries of Chief and Council are “reasonable” given the work they do in the particular context. Remuneration should be disclosed annually to the members of the First Nation.... Instead of working to encourage first nations to develop their own accountability and transparency protocols, the Conservatives have chosen to impose a system of reporting of which the Canadian Bar Association says:—the consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration allow a far more detailed inspection of expenses than those released by provincial or territorial governments. Speaking for the Assembly of First Nations, B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould told the committee:Chiefs were clear in their assertion that these proposed measures...are both heavy-handed and unnecessary, and they suggest that first nations governments are corrupt and our leaders are not transparent and consequently need to be regulated by Ottawa.As to who should be developing accountability and transparency protocols, Chief Wilson-Raybould was clear, saying:—who should be responsible for determining the rules that apply to our governments and our governing bodies. The simple answer is that our nation should be....In closing Chief Wilson-Raybould said:It is troubling during this period of transition, as we move away from governance under the Indian Act, that the federal government seems to increasingly want to design our governance for us, in spite of the fundamental need for our nations to undertake this work ourselves in order for it to be legitimate.Another shortfall with this legislation is the requirement to post financial information on the Internet for 10 years. Many first nations are located in very remote areas of Canada with little or no Internet access. Creating a website and maintaining it for years would be an additional cost to these first nations.The Canadian Bar Association observed:Most First Nations’ communities consist of fewer than 500 residents, many in remote areas, which impacts both service delivery and operating expenses. Most communities do not have funding to build the infrastructure necessary for Internet access, or the resources to create and maintain their own websites.In addition to the technical problems with posting on the Internet, as the Canadian Bar Association observes, there is an issue of cost. However, this is not the only additional financial burden this act would place on first nations who are already seeing reduced funding for program delivery.Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation told the committee:One of the biggest problems for first nations is a lack of professional capacity, because of the way our communities are funded, through band support funding. A lot of our communities are funded and we have financial clerks. But a financial clerk cannot keep pace with the onerous reporting requirements of the federal government.First nations, with their limited professional capacity, are already struggling to meet their reporting burden. First nation communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required yearly by the federal government.In December 2006 the Auditor General pointed out that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs “alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations”. The Auditor General concluded that “the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.(1555)The comment from the Canadian Bar Association is particularly telling. It states:The legislation will not increase the capacity required to facilitate best practices of First Nations’ governments. Financial statements alone do not provide a meaningful measure of performance, nor are they a fair reflection of community priorities. In addition, non-compliance with onerous reporting burdens can lead to disastrous consequences, such as those flowing from the recent housing crisis at Attawapiskat First Nation. Withholding funds for non-compliance might result in the federal government failing to meet its constitutional obligation to provide essential services to all Canadians.The Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada raised a key question about these increased costs, saying, “These types of reporting lead to increased costs. Who pays for these additional costs?” It is clear who would pay. The aboriginal people of Canada would pay through reduced government programs and services on their reserves and in their bands. Funding that should be going to improve the lives of Canada's aboriginal people would instead be spent on more red tape and paperwork.Then there is the requirement that first nations must be accountable to more than their membership. Chief Wilson-Raybould addressed this in her testimony. She said:There is, of course, no concern where those receiving the audited consolidated financial statements are our citizens. This is, however, not the case where there is a requirement for public dissemination. This is a material departure from what was proposed in Bill C-575 and the precedent set under the first nations fiscal management act. The last area I want to address is the impact that the bill would have on the economic development of first nations. The Conservatives pretend the bill would improve economic development when it would be likely to drive business away. Chief Darcy Bear warned the committee that the bill would result in the private sector deciding not to invest or partner with first nations. He said:—we want to make sure that this bill is not going to scare away businesses from our community. You have the private sector off reserve and they have certain reporting requirements, but if they go on reserve and they have to disclose their competitive information to all of their competitors, they're going to say they don't want to go on reserve, that it's not right for them.In her testimony, Chief Wilson-Raybould wondered why the bill would not be in line with public sector accounting standards when it came to business information. The bill has little to do with transparency and accountability. The bill would not increase economic development of first nations, rather, it would make first nations less attractive to business. The bill would not move first nations toward self-government, rather, it would go back to the days when aboriginal Canadians were treated as wards of the state. The effect of the bill would be to go back to paternalism and colonialism.As Lloyd Phillips, who sits on the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake near Montreal observed, in part, “It seems like (Bill C-27) is really about blaming aboriginal poverty on fiscal mismanagement instead of chronic underfunding”.Can we not start to treat first nations in a fashion that deserves their respect, that makes their way in this country acceptable? They need to build their institutions. That is clearly obvious. We do not need to tell them how to build their institutions. We do not need to instruct them every step of the way on how they are going to do things. They need the independence and the strength that comes from independence to build successful communities and governments, and make them really a part of this great nation.AccountabilityBureaucracyC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsCommunity economic developmentCompaniesFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment billsInformation disseminationThird reading and adoptionWeb sitesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRayBoughenPalliser//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Financial Transparency ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what my colleague said in his discourse, which I think was great but perhaps he should take the time to make a speech, or perhaps he cannot because time allocation has been put on him.The member said the bill is a catalyst for change. The bill is not a catalyst. A catalyst is something that assists the process. The bill is very heavy-handed. The bill tells first nations what they have to do. If the bill were a catalyst, it would have incentives for behaviour. It would try to work through consultation to come up with an agreeable system that we could all work together on. This is not a catalyst. There is no way it is. A basic understanding of that word says that the bill is not that.AccountabilityC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionRayBoughenPalliserKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFirst Nations Financial Transparency ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1605)[English]Mr. Speaker, the whole problem with this type of legislation goes back to its beginning.We can talk about how it may or may not be implemented, but the problem lies in its conception. If we do not deal with that, we will never come to grips with the basic principles that should guide our relationship between the first nations and the federal government. We need to work very hard to get to those principles. I am sure that the Auditor General, in her desire to see information flow correctly, has come to some conclusions that the member will probably share with us at another time. I want to stress that the importance here is in the principles that guide the legislation.AccountabilityC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have some concerns with the fact that two very specific acts were lumped together in one piece of legislation. It certainly may cause some difficulty at committee. We need to have a fulsome discussion of this particular bill at committee, because there are many aspects of it that are extremely important to northerners.I want to ask the minister a question. Quite obviously, land use plans are an integral part of the Nunavut Act. Over the past dozen years, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act has been implemented, and one of the provisions in that act was land use plans in the various regions of the Northwest Territories. Every group that has looked at it, including the government's own independent consultant who looked at environmental assessment throughout the north, recognized that these land use plans had to be put in place in order for the legislation to work properly. However, to this day, there are no land use plans in place in the Northwest Territories, and the government is considering other changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that would change the very structure of environmental assessment in the north.How can the minister guarantee that this Nunavut Act is going to work in a good fashion if the fundamental principle of it is to get the land use plans in place? The federal government has been incredibly slow and inactive on this file. We have a situation where the legislation looks good, but how can we guarantee that the implementation of the legislation is going to move any faster in Nunavut than what has occurred in the Northwest Territories?C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritorySecond readingJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island NorthJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories is a prime example of a mining economy. When the minister talks about our GDP going down this year, that is because the capital investment in the mines took place in the previous year.We all know the mining industry in the Northwest Territories. We understand its pitfalls and benefits. However, the minister is denigrating the Northwest Territories on its economic performance, when it is really about how the mining industry works. When diamond mines invest hundreds of millions of dollars in one year to do their underground works and then do not invest the next year, yes, we see a drop in the GDP.Does the minister not agree that is the sort of work we have to deal with in the Northwest Territories and the mining industry throughout the north?C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritorySecond readingJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island NorthJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this particular bill. It is a bill that is very important to the people of the north. As a northern representative, I look forward to dealing with our northern regulatory issues in good fashion, in a fashion that can promote development but can also protect our environment.Northerners have lived through all of that. There is no question that in the Northwest Territories we understand the nature of the mining industry. As I mentioned to the minister earlier, it is an up-and-down industry. Mines are created. There is huge capital investment in the mines. Afterwards there is an ongoing process with operations and maintenance of those facilities. That creates an up-and-down nature in the gross domestic product of our very small territory. Our territory has 45,000 people in it. Adding in a very large capital investment causes the GDP to rise. We are accustomed to that. We have lived through these boom-and-bust cycles with the mining industry over and over again.It is very important that we understand the mining industry. It is very important that we know what mine plans do to our economy. It is very important to understand how much mining will benefit the north and where that line can be drawn. When the minister talks about 8,000 jobs in the mining industry going to northerners, he is not really being accurate. It is pretty hard to fill the existing mining jobs in the Northwest Territories with northerners. We run about 50%, and we are topped up. We are topped up in the mines that we have already.We do have some room to add on mining jobs in the Northwest Territories. However, when we talk about 8,000 jobs, we are talking about increasing our population by a very large extent if we want to fill those with northerners. When the population of the Northwest Territories is increased, enormous pressure is put on the government because the cost of living and the cost of providing facilities in the north is so high.We view mining very carefully. It is important for our economy. We live with the results of mining. When it comes to the environment, throughout the Northwest Territories we live with the results of mining. We live with the results of bad decisions, decisions improperly made or made too quickly. Those decisions have led us to projects such as the Giant Mine, the worst environmental nightmare in Canada. The only solution for the 270,000 tonnes of arsenic underground is to perpetually freeze it in place so that future generations can deal with it.The government is on the hook for billions of dollars for the Giant Mine over the foreseeable future. What we see there is what happens when environmental assessment does not work right. What we see with other projects is the same thing. We can look at the Pine Point Mine and the result of that. There is no money left for reclamation. The site was left abandoned. The investment in the community was abandoned.These are things that we live with in the Northwest Territories. We understand mining very well. We understand its relationship to the environment. Probably more so, the Yukon has the same understanding. Nunavut is just moving into an understanding of mining and how it will work out in its vast territory. I am glad to see that the Nunavut land claims agreement is moving forward, considering that it has been in preparation for almost two decades. We can perhaps understand the frustration of those people who live in Nunavut, in getting their legislation in place and in understanding how that is going to work.That is one of the reasons why I would love to see the bill split. Nunavut could move forward very quickly. There would be minor amendments, which we understand people are interested in making. That would open an opportunity for Nunavut's people to have a better hold on their regulatory process, a process that, as I pointed out earlier in my question to the minister, is focused on land use planning.(1235)Land use planning is the key element. It is certainly very important. However, we have seen little progress in the Northwest Territories on approving land use plans, which have been worked on for a dozen years. Whether in the Sahtu, Gwich’in or Inuvialuit areas, land use plans need to be developed. In the unsettled claim area of the Dehcho in the Northwest Territories, an interim land use plan was proposed to deal with the issues. That has not found success with the federal government.We want to see the bill move forward as quickly as possible. It is a start in the right direction for Nunavut. However, let us hope that when it is put in place the land use plans come very quickly. These land use plans are not written in stone. They are amendable over a certain period of time so that people can adjust them accordingly, so that they work for people in a good fashion. That is exactly what should happen with them. Let us go ahead with Nunavut and get that through.With regard to the Northwest Territories and the surface rights board, it is a much more difficult issue in some ways. Unlike Nunavut and the Yukon, we have unsettled areas where there has not been an agreement to have a surface rights board. That is not in place yet. That has not been negotiated between the traditional landowners, the first nations of the Dehcho or the Akaitcho, which is quite a large area of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, what we would be doing with the act is putting in place legislation that has not gone through the process that it has for the Tlicho, the Sahtu and the Gwich’in, where this was negotiated and agreed to by both parties. What we have is a situation where it is going to be put in place, regardless.Within the bill there is a clause that says the minister must review the act upon the creation of any new land agreement with any party in the Northwest Territories. However, is that review sufficient for the people of the Northwest Territories, for the Dehcho and Akaitcho people, who are still negotiating their land claims? Is it sufficient that this would simply be subject to a review? Without qualifications to a review, without understanding what a review could accomplish for those two groups, that question needs to be further outlined in committee. It needs to be answered for a very important part of the Northwest Territories. There are things that have to be done there. In the briefing, it was indicated that the municipalities have not been engaged on this issue. There was a feeling from the department that they did not have a role here. That is not correct because we have existing mines that are located within municipal boundaries, so there are some surface rights that extend into municipal areas. Therefore, access is important to municipalities. As landowners they have to be part of it. They do have a role here. Consultation has not taken place with them, so we will have to do that at committee as well, in order to understand how municipalities feel about and understand the legislation, which could affect their role. There are private landowners as well, although not many in the Northwest Territories, that may have some interest in the legislation. Hopefully, we can accomplish this in a fulsome committee examination. We could do the work of government for them at committee. I think that is fair enough.(1240)The minister says this is all about economic development, that the government in effect is passing environmental legislation all about economic development. Is there not something wrong with that statement? Should we not be passing environmental legislation to protect the environment, to ensure for future generations that projects are conducted in a good fashion that yields a good result, and that when companies leave their disturbances are taken care of? That is just what needs to be done.Good development also ties in with the needs of the people of the region. In the three territories, we have a problem, because we are not provinces. We cannot go to developers and tell them that we want a road in an area as well, that we will work with them to create the infrastructure because it will benefit our people later on. No, under the NWT Act, any new road has to be approved by the federal government; it is a federal government responsibility.How do we see it playing out in the Northwest Territories? With the diamond mines, which are a great economic development opportunity for the Northwest Territories and for Canada, we have seen very little public infrastructure developed.Now that fuel prices have gone through the roof, companies are saying that they cannot make a go of it in the future with these prices. However, if we had done it in an orderly, planned fashion, we would have put in hydro-electric power in the Slave province area where the three diamond mines exist right now. That did not happen. The federal government was in charge of that environmental assessment. It chose not to even examine hydro-electric power at the time in 1998, and now today the economy of those mines is suffering. The economy of the Northwest Territories has missed an opportunity to develop more infrastructure and more resources. Therefore, resource development is a very important tool for human development as well. We miss the connection when we do not have a good say over development. When we do not take a long and careful look at how development would work, we miss the opportunity that could actually enhance and build our territories, which could also perhaps some day become provinces.These are not areas that are simply set aside for resource development. That attitude should not prevail. The attitude should be one in which the north is for northern people and that they should be served first by development, so that development works to enhance the lives of every single northerner. That is what we look at when we talk about development.We can look at the past and see that there was one great example of a properly developed resource, although the company did not do a very good job after it finished. That was the Pine Point Mine. The company developed a hydro-electric system and a road and railway, and all of those legacy items remain today as part of the infrastructure and economy of the Northwest Territories.We want to see that kind of development continue, but we do not want to see big holes in the ground filled with water that have an environmental impact. We have some real goals with environmental assessment, and they are not predicated on slamming things through the system but on careful planning. That is how we make success for the north. We do not make success simply by throwing the doors open, getting through the process as quickly as possible, getting the shovels in the ground as quickly as possible without planning carefully what we are doing. I do not see that attitude from the government at all. I do not see that planning attitude implicit in what it is doing, and the federal government still holds all the cards when it comes to northern development. We need to take the part of the legislation dealing with the proposed NWT Surface Rights Board and give it close examination in committee. That is where we want to go. We will find out there what people really think and how to make this work for us. That is our goal.(1245)We had hoped that the bill could be split so that the territories could be dealt with as separate entities. We are not all the same. I do not agree with the minister's attitude that the three territories should be dealt with as one unit; we are not one unit. Nunavut has one common government and one land claim. It has a system it has designed for itself. The Yukon has a completely different system of party politics, which has been established over many years. In the Northwest Territories, we are different. We have six major claims areas that are going to have self-government and a large say in the resources and the development of those particular regions. We do not want that changed. If the members were to talk to people in the Northwest Territories, they would see that they are not talking about giving up their unique identity. They are not talking about getting in line with the other two territories and marching to the same drum as good little soldiers for the federal government's plans. No, we have our own way of dealing with ourselves, just as Alberta has its own way and puts up with the representation it has. We have our own way. I have been elected three times by the people of the Northwest Territories on a strong environmental platform. I did not get elected simply on resource development; I got elected because people knew I would stand here and speak up for the values that we hold in the Northwest Territories. That is what I am going to do every day I am here. I do not care what Albertans say, I do not care what Ontarians say: I am here for the people of the Northwest Territories.We look forward to the bill coming to committee, but it needs a fulsome discussion there. If the Conservative government thinks this is simply a slam dunk, it can forget about it.Akaitcho Territory Tribal CouncilAkaitcho Treaty 8C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsDehcho First NationsGovernment billsLand useMining industryNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest Territories Surface Rights BoardNunavut TerritoryRegional developmentSecond readingJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island NorthGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points made, one of which was on a carbon tax. In the Northwest Territories over the last decade, the price of fuel oil, the prime element in our energy system, has gone up by almost 400%. How much has that changed consumption patterns in the Northwest Territories? Not so much. Therefore, I see a carbon tax as probably not being that effective in moving us from that. However, what we need from the Conservative government is some commitment to invest and provide incentives for renewable energy throughout the whole of northern Canada. We do not need a carbon tax, but we do need the incentives to change. That is one element that I think is quite clear; indeed, our party has always said that cap and trade is a good idea because it promotes renewable energy.The parliamentary secretary also said that he hoped that we would work well together in committee on this. That is my record. I will continue to do whatever is good for the people of the north, whatever fits with their values, which is what I was elected to represent, and ensure that is taken care of at committee.C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritorySecond readingGregRickfordKenoraJasbirSandhuSurrey North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to contract some work the other day looking at the impact of Bill C-38 on northern Canada. Under environmental assessment, it is clearly just a terrible disgrace what is happening in the north. What is happening across Canada is only magnified in the north, because northerners do not have the strength of being provincial governments that hold the cards. In so many respects, we are reliant on the federal government to do the heavy lifting when it comes to environmental issues, and the Conservative government is not interested in heavy lifting on environmental issues and quite obviously is setting us up for some very difficult times.This is something that the government is going against. The development of environmental legislation was all-encompassing through the government. The Department of Transport website always used to talk about the environment until the Conservative government removed those words. We have within Canada an understanding that environmental concerns are holistic, covering all aspects of life. The government is trying to push these aspects down into one little spot and take them away. That is not the direction to go. What the Conservatives are doing will hurt in the end because they are not going to be here forever. When we get a decent government that understands Canadians' values, it will go back to more environmental protection. How is that going to leave the certainty of what is going on in this country? You are disturbing the certainty of our country.C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresC-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritorySecond readingJasbirSandhuSurrey NorthJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNorthern Jobs and Growth ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, tax incentives have been in place for a variety of renewable energy sources for many years. I am glad to hear there is a new one. However, the government is hanging its hat on one little bit of legislation when changing northern energy systems requires a major effort on the part of all of us. There are 300 communities across northern Canada that are totally reliant on diesel fuel right now. The cost of that diesel fuel has gone up 400% over the last decade. Who is paying the bill In a lot of those communities? It is the federal government. Therefore, the government should have a vested interest in converting these communities to cheaper energy forms. It is absolutely the case.In the Northwest Territories, we are moving a great number of our large buildings to biomass heating. Has the federal government converted one building in the north yet to biomass heating? No. It has not engaged in that program. I raised that issue with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services months ago. Where is the participation? It is not good enough just to put out one little tax incentive for somebody to do something. We need to get behind these programs. We need to invest money because we will get a return on that. I thought the Conservative government had an interest in making government more effective. I do not see it in the north.C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsLand useNunavut TerritorySecond readingDanAlbasOkanagan—CoquihallaCarolynBennettHon.St. Paul's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsParks CanadaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I raised a question a number of weeks ago about the cuts to Parks Canada across the country, especially in my riding in the Northwest Territories, where over the past six years the Conservative government has been very proud to promote the development of parks. The government talked about that in its answer, but my question dealt with the lack of attention to important funding for parks. In particular, I referred to the Nahanni National Park expansion. When voted on the bill in the House of Commons, there was unanimous consent because the minister at that time, the Hon. Jim Prentice, gave me a letter indicating very clearly that the government was going to invest considerably in capital in Fort Simpson to improve the ability of the park to deliver services, promote tourism and do all those things. As well, a larger staff was going to be hired in the park. In the Conservative budget this spring, we saw a cut to those promises. We still have not seen any capital investment in the park and this is breaking a promise that the Conservatives made to the people of the Deh Cho region of the Northwest Territories to establish a very large park. Taking the land of that park was a commitment on the part of the Government of Canada. It was a gift of the people of the Deh Cho to Canada. There is a requirement for respect. Respect says we stick with the deal that we made. When we make a deal like this that is good for Canada and the people of the north, we should stick with it. In its budget, the government broke its promise to the people of the Deh Cho. I would like the government to restore the funding and staffing positions of the Nahanni National Park, as it should be. This park was expanded by over 20,000 square kilometres. The Nahanni National Park is a world-class tourism opportunity. To beggar the park at this point in time is exactly the wrong thing to do. This is a jewel in the Canadian park system.Across the entire north, there have been sacrifices on a number of occasions with national parks. What have we seen out of that? We saw the loss of over 64 positions throughout the three northern territories. The three northern territories carry 12 national parks in Canada. Twelve of the 44 national parks in Canada are in those three territories. The commitment of the people of the north to national parks is large. Why is the government failing in its commitment to ensure that parks work effectively and efficiently and promote the economic well-being of the communities of the north?Adjournment ProceedingsBudget cutsNahanni National Park Reserve of CanadaNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesParks Canada AgencyThaidene Nene National Park ReserveJoeComartinWindsor—TecumsehChrisAlexanderAjax—Pickering//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsParks CanadaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1950)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's position does not bode well for the creation of new parks. It does not bode well for the co-operation of people to create new parks if the government creates new parks but does not live up to its promise to protect the resources in those parks and to give them the intrinsic nature they require to grow and expand as important parts of the northern economy and of the economies of the regions of the north.The Dehcho people gave up a very important piece of natural real estate with many significant resources in it for that park. We expect the Government of Canada to live up to its commitments.Adjournment ProceedingsBudget cutsNahanni National Park Reserve of CanadaNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesParks Canada AgencyThaidene Nene National Park ReserveChrisAlexanderAjax—PickeringChrisAlexanderAjax—Pickering//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone here who is supporting my speech. I speak to a very difficult bill that the government has brought forward, Bill C-27, ostensibly called a “transparency act”, but really it is another colonial act. That is what the bill is about. We have a bill that speaks to a very small segment of society that considers first nations to have extreme problems with accountability. It demands a system of accountability that is really unacceptable, that would not meet the needs of first nations and that would impose a burden that would, in some cases, put first nations at a disadvantage with other Canadians. The bill would force first nations who are still under the Indian Act to publicly post their financial statements of any moneys provided to chiefs and band councillors regardless of where it is earned, including reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses, its auditors' reports on financial statements and its auditors' reports on moneys paid to chiefs and council, and to make these available on a website for a period of 10 years. All this information is already accessible to band members through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs by request. This information is available to those who want it and they make use of that service, from what we were told, upwards of 150 to 200 times a year. I do not know if that is every year or in particular years, but out of the 600 or so bands, that is the volume of requests put forward.Once we took the bill to committee, even those who supported it said that there needed to be amendments. There were a few major supporters within the first nations who took the position of the government and said they wanted it. They made that choice. However, by and large, the majority of first nations people understood and recognized that this was not the way to do business and that this was not government to government. When the minister was in front of us I asked him whether he considers the relationship between the federal government and the band councils in Canada to be government to government. He agreed with me. He said that it is. Hence, the hypocrisy of the bill, which would treat first nations people as wards of the state.In the Northwest Territories, another government that is set up by a bill of this Parliament, the NWT Act, the NWT government gets to choose how it discloses information. That applies to Nunavut as well as to the Yukon. We have a situation here where the government agrees it is a government to government relationship, yet it will not treat the first nations in the same fashion that it treats others. We have equality in this country. We have equality as a guiding principle of this country and the Conservatives seem to take that and ignore it.There is a hypocrisy issue here as well because quite clearly the current government has been one of the most secretive governments in the history of Canada. International agencies that monitor access to information have taken us from fourth place in the world to 52nd place in our ability to access information from the government. In terms of the information that is given, when the Conservative government came to power, the average redaction of information was 15%. Fifteen per cent of the items that the government released to the public was redacted. It is now 47%. Why? Has the nature of government changed so much? Has secrecy become so important? If it is so important for the Conservatives, why would they insist that first nation governments would have to show everything to everyone in this country on a website for every nitpicker in the country to look at. Everyone with a grudge against first nations could go there and go through their dirty laundry to look for something. That is what the government wants to do to first nations. That is what it is doing with the bill. What a shame.(1710)The government could have, through incentives to first nations, enabled them to develop their own information systems. Many have. Many of the first nations that came in front of us said, “Look, here is the work that we have done. Here is how we disclose our information. We are proud of it. We did this ourselves”.What does the government do? It slaps it on everyone. How is that government to government? Shame on the government. Shame on it for not treating first nations in a respectful fashion. That is the problem we had in Canada for 100 years. I thought we were trying to get over this problem of treating first nations with little respect. After signing treaties with them, after taking over their land, when are we going to treat them with respect?Let us talk about the Conservative government for a while, because the bill is going to pass and we are going to end up in a situation where the first nations are going to have wait three years to get this fixed. Right now, the government has done very bad things with respect to accountability and transparency.One of the first acts by the government was to create the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, saying this would make the government more accountable. Since that day, the government has denied information, delayed the release of information and demeaned the PBO. Most recently, the PBO has had to threaten court action to get the information he needs to provide parliamentarians with the facts we need to properly review Conservative budgets and other financial statements. This is a public government, open to every citizen of the country, unlike first nations, which are governments for specific groups of people in this country. We have a responsibility as a public government to release information to all and sundry.When it comes to the environment, the Conservative government has shut down investigation into climate change, taken out the Experimental Lakes Area, closed Arctic research centres and has muzzled scientists from speaking in public. What is going on? What is it about science that Conservatives feel the rest of the Canadians should not know? What is it about science that the government wants to hide from us? That is a question that perhaps we will get in the next election. That is when the Canadian public will actually decide what information they want. There is the F-35 auditor's report and the handling of the Auditor General's report. In his first report as Auditor General, Michael Ferguson said the Department of National Defence gambled on the F-35 fighter jet without running a fair competition, while lacking cost certainty or any guarantee the plane could replace the current fleet of CF-18s by the end of the decade. He went on to talk about business conducted in an uncoordinated fashion by federal departments.What did the government do? First it said his information was all wrong, after refusing to release the information he requested. Then it tried to shut committee meetings in this boondoggle. The final attempt by the Conservative government to hide the truth has been to delay the release of the public accounts committee report looking into the debacle. These are hardly the actions of a government that supports accountability and transparency.I could go on for quite a long time about the inadequacy of the government when it comes to accountability and transparency. The Canadian public would probably enjoy hearing about all the issues we have with that. I could talk about robocalls, the impact of the health care transfer cuts to the provinces, the cost of the ideological prison agenda or election financing schemes, but I would be here all day and I only have 30 seconds.For the Conservatives to say that the single biggest issue for first nations people, many of whom live in third world poverty, is the need for accountability beyond what they do already is real hypocrisy.Access to informationAccountabilityC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsInformation disseminationReport stagePeterVan LoanHon.York—SimcoeAlexandrineLatendresseLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, the issue surrounding the paperwork that first nations are required to produce is really extraordinary. These governments are being hobbled in their work by the federal government and by the aboriginal affairs bureaucracy. There is no doubt about that. That goes on with respect to every single issue that these people work on. It requires massive change. It is not a question of stupidly increasing the accountability provisions as is happening with this legislation. It is about coming to an understanding of how governments can be accountable in good fashion.There is so much to do for first nations. They have so much promise and potential and they are being held back tremendously by the rules that run their lives.AccountabilityBureaucracyC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment billsReport stageAlexandrineLatendresseLouis-Saint-LaurentKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to a certain extent. Consultation is important but it is also important to recognize the fundamental principle that this is a government to government relationship. The Government of Canada does not consult with the government of the Northwest Territories and tell it what its transparency arrangements are going to be. What are we speaking about when we speak about government to government relationships? First nations that accomplish the work for themselves, that develop their own systems of transparency, are going to be the most successful ones. That is simply the case. We need to throw off the shackles that exist between the federal government and first nations in a proper and respectful fashion. Bill C-27 goes in the wrong direction. It goes in another direction, which is simply going to increase the aspects of what we do not want. That is the problem we have with the bill. It is a problem that the government has to recognize because it has a number of other bills coming forward that are going to do the same thing, that are going to create the same problem with the relationship between the federal government and first nations.AccountabilityC-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First NationsFinancial managementFirst NationsGovernment billsReport stageKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1905)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the government in a discussion about the need for an international treaty on Arctic fisheries.This summer, the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean reached its greatest extent on record, shrinking to less than 3.5 million square kilometres, which is less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago. Approximately 25% of the ice mass is intact in that area.Loss of permanent sea ice has opened up as much as 40% of this pristine region, making commercial fisheries viable for the first time in human history.This area is beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of the eight Arctic nations, so it is international water and is not covered by a fisheries management regime.In April of this year, more than 2,000 scientists from 67 countries urged Arctic leaders to develop an international fisheries agreement that would protect the waters of the central Arctic Ocean. The 2,000 scientists recommended that Arctic Council members take the lead in developing a precautionary international fisheries management agreement; start with a catch level of zero until sufficient scientific research can assess the impact of fisheries on the central Arctic ecosystem; and set up a robust management, monitoring and enforcement system before fishing begins.With the ocean warming and the sea ice melting, Pacific sockeye salmon, Atlantic cod, pollock and other commercially attractive species may well move northward.Within 200 nautical miles of shore, jurisdiction to regulate fishing falls exclusively to the coastal state. However, stocks that live in the high seas beyond this zone or that move between the high seas and this zone are vulnerable to over-exploitation. The lack of regulation makes the now ice-free Arctic Ocean a tempting target for high-seas trawler fleets from non-Arctic nations.The 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement enables coastal states to create a regional fisheries organization to manage straddling and highly migratory stocks in the areas beyond 200 nautical miles from shore by setting quotas and through other means. However, any such organization must be open to states outside the region. Any state wanting to fish within the region must join the organization. By doing so, it is able to participate fully.We have a situation in the Arctic. The Arctic is changing rapidly. There is great concern about what is going to happen with the fisheries there, obviously.When we speak to the importance of the work on this that is going ahead right now, we can look to the Arctic Council. Canada is taking over the chair of the Arctic Council this spring. There is an opportunity, perhaps, not to fully engage the nations in the opportunity to put forward agreements and treaties but, with a two-year timeframe for the chairmanship, to initiate that procedure. It is going to take the government making plans, very early in the process, to accomplish anything within that two-year timeframe. That is why it is important for the government to outline whether it is interested and ready to take that step. Negotiation of an Arctic fishery organization agreement would have to at least include the European Union. The Arctic Council can take the lead. Many other countries are going to be involved.This summer , the Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon, took a direct route over the North Pole. It took 20 days to go from Iceland to the Asian coast. That is the reality of the situation we are facing in the Arctic.Adjournment ProceedingsAgreements and contractsArcticArctic fisheriesFisheries policyInternational relationsRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague's approach and the government's approach to the conditions that will exist in the Arctic is very conservative. Quite clearly, the extent of the ice decomposition in the Arctic has moved along much faster than anyone predicted over the last number of years. The opportunity for the ice to completely leave the Arctic is now considered within the next decade.We have a situation where things are moving very rapidly. The extent of a clear ocean now extends, in many cases, past the 200 mile limit, about which my colleague talked. Therefore, we are already in a position where we can start to assess the relative fish stocks in the area. It is important to move forward with this. There is no reason to slow down the examination of this issue. It requires attention.Adjournment ProceedingsAgreements and contractsArctic fisheriesFisheries policyInternational relationsRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not have to rewrite history on this question because it is about navigation. On Monday, the premier of the Northwest Territories stated that his government was not consulted before the Minister of Transport removed the protections from most of the waterways in the north. If the minister had been consulted, he would have been told that removing the protection from Hay River would also have meant removing protection from the largest port facility in Canada's north. Since the minister could not be bothered to consult with other Canadian governments, just who did he consult with before acting in such a ham-fisted manner?C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresFederal-provincial-territorial relationsInland watersNavigable Waters Protection ActNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsWater qualityPierrePoilievreNepean—CarletonStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have excluded from protection many northern rivers which northerners rely on for navigation, such as the Nahanni River, the Liard River, most of the Yukon River, the Bear River and even the Slave River, which drains 80% of the water leaving Alberta and has been used for barging for more than 100 years. It is now excluded from protection. This could be opened up for a major power dam. Is it the government's intent to remove any controls and development on the Slave and these other rivers?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental protectionInland watersNavigable Waters Protection ActOmnibus billsOral questionsDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-JeanDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, a bill that would change the nature of the National Defence Act and, in some ways, improve the military's system of criminal justice. This legislation has been a part of ongoing debate in Parliament over a number of years. We have some serious concerns with this legislation and will be opposing it at second reading. Committee stage has not been all that fruitful over the last year and a half of the majority Conservative government, but I suppose that if we did get some amendments that brought the legislation back to the state it was in the previous parliament, then we could get onside with that. Here we are debating this legislation in the House of Commons, recognizing that committees have not been doing their due diligence on many of the bills that have gone forward. The government has been using its majority in committees to block many useful amendments. That problem, we all recognize, has been changing our ability to provide good legislation for Canadians.I want to talk about the summary trial system and the fact that a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial of a Canadian Forces member may result in a criminal record. I am concerned about the vast number of Canadians who may end up with a criminal record for offences that are relatively minor and the fact that we do this at a higher rate than many other civilized countries in the world.We have a system that puts a criminal record on the backs of Canadians for a variety of offences, including in some cases for very minor and victimless offences that really do not warrant the kind of long-term impediment to a convicted person's lifestyle that a criminal conviction entails. That impediment includes getting a job, getting a place to live or travelling to other countries. Having a criminal record in Canada seriously impedes the progress of someone's life, and we here in Parliament should take it seriously. A conviction becomes part of a citizen's history and affects his or her life going forward. Now we have summary trials in the military tradition. The NDP worked hard on the previous bill to get an amendment that would strike off a great number of the offences under the National Defence Act that can result in criminal records. In the previous bill the government was going to remove five of those offences but we managed to get that number up to 27. I am not familiar with precisely which five offences still remain in this legislation. When I look at the offences under the National Defence Act, such as disobedience of a lawful command, for instance, should that carry forward in every instance in a summary trial? Remember that we are talking about a summary trial where there is no obligation on the part of those conducting the trial to provide legal counsel to the people standing in front of them. We are dealing with a hierarchical system where the complainant in the military tradition has the upper hand over the defendant.(1050)Providing prompt but fair justice in respect to minor service offences contributes to the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency. However, given that our military personnel are under great stress and have to deal with being away from home for long periods of time under a very strict command and control structure, they are likely to offend in some way if, under the command system, they are identified as a problem. That is the nature of military service.We have to think about what we are doing with or creating for these people when they come out of the military into the general population. That is very important. It is a very serious situation for them if, from a summary trial, they have a criminal record for some minor service infraction. I think this goes on quite often In Canada. We give people a criminal record for a variety of small offences in the military, which I do not think is appropriate to do there or in the general justice system. We need to reform all of our justice systems so that we not too easily burden people with a criminal record designation.Under the National Defence Act we have offences such as abuse of subordinates, connivance at desertion, absence without leave, cruel or disgraceful conduct, insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances. These are all part of life. They are things that happen to one degree or another. How is something like a quarrel or disturbance designated? I hate to think that by quarrelling with the government here over the bill that I could be up on a summary offence by some trial in the House of Commons. However, that is what happens in the military.We must maintain military discipline and there are reasons to have summary trials, but the sentencing that goes along with that is what we are talking about here. That is at question. Should minor offences have a long-lasting impact on a person's life? This is why the NDP is taking a strong position here, because we do not want to see this happen. We did have good results in the last Parliament in getting 27 of these offences removed, and I think that would make the bill more palatable.It is not every day that we discuss the nature of military justice. This is our last shot at it. Once the bill has gone through the process, it may not come before Parliament for another decade. There may be many instances where people end up with criminal records for relatively minor offences over the next decade, if the bill passes during the course of this session. We have important work to do here and want to see this done right. We want to ensure that the kinds of penalties given for offences in this regard are well thought out and are not punishing Canadians unduly for things that may occur under the conditions of military service. C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian ForcesCriminal recordsGovernment billsMilitary justice systemMilitary personnelSecond readingSummary trialsCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayChrisAlexanderAjax—Pickering//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear in my discourse that I agreed with the idea of summary trials. What we are concerned about here is the kind of sentence that is passed under those summary trials. That is why we want to see changes made, so that these types of summary trials have appropriate punishments attached to them and do not lead to many people ending up with criminal records in the country for relatively minor offences.C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian ForcesCriminal recordsGovernment billsMilitary justice systemSecond readingSummary trialsChrisAlexanderAjax—PickeringSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are two things that go on there. For instance, having military service in one's background is normally a plus on a resumé. It really represents time that someone has invested in the country, perhaps putting one's life at risk and having agreed to serve in a diligent fashion under the orders of others. That person has made a contribution. Now he or she ends up with a criminal record for a relatively minor offence. That goes on the resumé as well, in a real sense. It is there as part of that person's life record. However, when that person wants to get an apartment, a nice place, and have a good life in a good way and a criminal record check is done of them, the person checking will find that criminal record for a very minor offence, even though the ex-military member had served their country well. They would not be allowed to stay there. Perhaps that might upset their partner. Perhaps that might end up with their being less comfortable in their own lives. Those things happen and are the realities of life for someone with a criminal record. If someone goes to the border to go to the United States, will they be turned back for a minor offence? I get phone calls in the middle of the night from guys from my riding who have driven down to the Alberta-Montana border to go across with their kids to take them to a hockey tournament and they are turned back. Imagine what that does to that family. Because someone had a minor criminal record from 30 or 40 years ago, they get turned back when taking their children to a hockey tournament. That is the kind of thing that happens to someone with a criminal record. I do not want to see Canadians have criminal records unless they have really done something wrong and really stepped well past the boundaries of civilized society. C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsMilitary justice systemSecond readingSadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertKevinSorensonCrowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1100)[English]That does not mean creating a disturbance. We have all created a disturbance at one point or other in our lives. Someone is creating a disturbance here in the House of Commons. I am not going to ask him for his criminal record check. I am willing to accept sometimes that people do not always act in the best possible way. C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsMilitary justice systemSecond readingKevinSorensonCrowfootDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Food Safety]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know the concern we all have about food safety. I would like to reference back to see if the member could answer some questions about what has happened over the past number of years with the Brooks plant.In the past, the Alberta government invested heavily in speeding up the processing in this plant. It increased the rate of production through grants to XL Foods. Could the member tell me what the response was from the federal government and the CFIA to the effort that was made by the Alberta government to increase the production for that plant?AlbertaFood safetyGovernment assistanceMeat processing industryOpposition motionsProvincial governmentXL Foods Inc.BarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockLaVarPayneMedicine Hat//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2015)[English]Mr. Speaker, on September 12, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development issued offshore exploration leases to more than 9,000 square kilometres of the Beaufort Sea to Franklin Petroleum, a U.K. company, for $7.5 million in promised work.Franklin has no experience in the Arctic. According to its most recent corporate filing, it had $220 in the bank and a corporate value of minus $32,000. It is unlikely this company will actually do any work. Instead, it now has exclusive control over a vast area of the Beaufort Sea.Now that Franklin has these leases, section 85 of the Natural Resources Development Act allows it to transfer the leases to anyone by only notifying the minister of the transfer. No approval is required.Internationally, it is common that transfer of leases require ministerial approval. This is how things are done in the North Sea. Norway requires approval of the minister before licences can be transferred. Its law states:Transfer of a licence or participating interest in a licence for petroleum activities may not take place without the approval of the Ministry. Franklin Petroleum could just sit on these leases and do no work without any penalty. No jobs will be created while companies able to do this work will be excluded for many years. How does this help the economy or work in the national interest of Canada?The oil patch is scratching its head as to why the minister did this when he could have decided to not issue any leases as per the Canada Petroleum Resources Act which states:The Minister is not required to issue an interest as a result of a call for bid. The Canadian Business magazine, on October 10, questioned this decision, stating:How could a little-known British firm with two employees and no producing assets end up owning the largest oil lease ever issued in the Canadian Arctic? Long-time oil patch analyst, Paul Ziff, said:We're talking about one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in Canada.... This type of award flies in the face of public concern. Nigel Bankes, professor and chair of Natural Resources Law, University of Calgary, said:...I don’t think that we have seen a give-away on this scale since the giveaways that occurred before the first major discovery of oil and gas resources in the Arctic in Prudhoe Bay (Alaska) in 1969. Following that discovery federal policy makers resolved to be more demanding of international oil companies. This most recent decision looks like a step back in time. Professor Bankes has put forward three recommendations that the minister should have followed, if he were doing his job.First, carry out a strategic environmental assessment before making the significant decision to open up a new area to exploratory drilling.Second, develop and implement a scheme for the pre-qualification of bidders in an effort to ensure that those who are bidding on these blocks have the assets, the experience and the safety record to engage in this type of activity.Third, tighten up the bidding system, either to change the standard practice to a cash bidding system, or to require that a minimum work bid must at least cover the cost of the estimated exploratory well that must be drilled during the first period of the licence.Having a strategic environmental assessment actually follows the current cabinet directive on these types of development and is the process used in developing the off shore oil and gas off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.Unfortunately, the minister did not do his job and failed to protect the national interests of Canada by not doing due diligence on these leases. This is a disgrace.Adjournment ProceedingsBeaufort SeaFranklin PetroleumOffshore technologyOil and gasGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2020)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague neglects to say that there is a cabinet directive to provide a strategic environmental assessment before any leases are handed out. As well, the process that he describes sounds great if it is being handled in a correct fashion by a company that can handle it. However, what we see now is a company that cannot financially handle this kind of investment in the Arctic and will undoubtedly pick other partners for it. If the company or the other partners are successful in finding a significant discovery in that area, the companies then have the right to that resource. That resource remains with them.What we have is a situation where we do not have a clear future outlined in the handing out of this lease for such a low sum of money. I might add that a letter of credit is all that is required for the deposit that goes on these leases.Adjournment ProceedingsBeaufort SeaFranklin PetroleumOffshore technologyOil and gasGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsExperimental Lakes AreaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I, too, join in the theme of the petitions on saving the ELA, Canada's freshwater research station.I present this petition from a number of Canadians who are very concerned about this issue.Budget cutsExperimental Lakes AreaFresh waterPetition 411-2111Scientific research and scientistsWater qualityElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsJonathanGenest-JourdainManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Omnibus Legislation]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, during the course of an omnibus bill many changes are made to legislation. In my experience in the House of Commons changes to legislation require careful attention. They require the attention of a committee, through witnesses, to the way that legislation will work.What we saw with the omnibus bill was legislation that changed 70 bills with no amendments. That is a bad situation for Canadian legislative procedure and will likely lead to problems in the future. Even people who supported some of the proposed environmental changes said that amendments were needed, but they did not happen. Part of what is wrong with omnibus bills is that we do not get proper legislation, even if it is in the way that the government wants it. For the government to think it can put forward legislation that will change 70 bills without proper consultation and proper work done at committee is really bizarre to say the least. Dividing a billOmnibus billsOpposition motionsPeterVan LoanHon.York—SimcoePeterVan LoanHon.York—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsExperimental Lakes AreaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from my constituents to the House of Commons and Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following: freshwater is essential for life and vital to social, spiritual and economic well-being of Canadians; Canada's Experimental Lakes Area is a unique, world-renowned facility for freshwater research and education; and since 1968, ELA has been a global leader in conducting all ecosystem experiments that have been critical in shaping environmental policy and understanding human impacts on lakes and fishes.Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to recognize the importance of the ELA to the Government of Canada's mandate to study, preserve and protect aquatic ecosystems, reverse the decision to close the ELA research station and continue to staff and provide financial--Budget cutsExperimental Lakes AreaFresh waterPetition 411-2046Scientific research and scientistsWater qualityChrisAlexanderAjax—PickeringAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nexen]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.We are speaking to a motion that says that, in the opinion of the House, the government should not make a decision on the proposed takeover of Nexen by CNOOC without conducting thorough public consultations, and these accessible public hearings should be on the issue of foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector with a reference to state-owned enterprises.So far in the debate what I have learned from the government side is that in terms of policy and direction on this, the Conservatives are simply not there. They do not have the capacity to make a decision that is in the public interest because they do have the policies that allow them to analyze public interest.In this world today, state-owned enterprises are the norm in the energy sector across the world, whether it is Mexico, Norway, Brazil, Venezuela—in fact in most of the OPEC countries—and 75% of all oil resources are under the control of states worldwide. This is the reality of the oil and gas industry today. Only 7% of all oil and gas reserves are in countries that have a free rein on investment in oil and gas. Quite clearly, Canada is an exception, especially among energy exporting countries. I think of all the major energy exporting countries, and Canada is the only one that allows a free rein on investment. We have a situation in which Canada is not lined up with the rest of the world. We must explain why our competitive system, as we have heard the Conservatives describe it, is going to work going forward for our children and grandchildren. In terms of reserves, 13 top oil companies are state-owned. This game is afoot around the world and where is Canada? It is stuck in the mud.What is the feeling in Canada about energy? The general agreement, whether it is the premiers or the industry itself, is that we need a national energy strategy. Right across the country, there is a great deal of concern that we do not have one. This situation has been facing the Conservatives for the last six years, their time in government, and they have stonewalled on it. They have done nothing.It would be easier to support ownership of any kind if there were a Canadian agreement on the maximizing of benefits from our non-renewable and finite energy sources. These are non-renewable. These are finite. When we take them out of the country, we have less in the country, not more. So the bank account is being depleted as we speak, with our resources. What is the net benefit to Canadians from that?In the absence of a national energy strategy, how well does the laissez-faire approach work? How well is it working in the oil sands we are talking about today? One can safely say that it has been characterized by a chaotic and uncertain approach that jumps from one idea to the next. There is no control, no understanding of the environmental impacts of the oil sands. In fact, the industry itself has turned its back on the major agencies that were set up to study it and said they will not work.Take upgrading bitumen, which is a big component in the oil sands, a big part of the money and the benefits that can be made by Canadians. In 2007, the industry was prepared to upgrade all the oil in Canada. It was prepared to invest $100 billion in upgrading. How much is it ready to do today? Nothing. There is no upgrading capacity that is moving forward today in Canada, so we have lost that. Why did industry change so rapidly? What is it about our system that allows that kind of chaotic behaviour?(1340)There is a lack of effective research. If we look at the numbers, they show that research in the oil sands is far smaller than it is in most other aspects of the international energy scene. Why is that, when we know that the issues around the development of the oil sands are complex and become more complex the deeper we go in the ground? At a breakfast held here in Ottawa before the summer break, a professor from the University of Calgary explained very clearly what is going to happen as companies dig deeper into the oil sands and how much more difficult that is going to become.What about the direction for markets? We are proposing a pipeline to the United States to upgrade the bitumen in old refineries down there that were designed for Venezuelan heavy oil. In fact right now BP had one of its licenses turned down to operate one of those upgraders in the United States because it did not meet environmental standards. That is one idea that we have had.The other idea is to market it in China, in the far east, through the gateway pipeline, though it opposed by almost every person along that route. The idea is to export raw bitumen to China at the same time we are exporting liquefied natural gas to China. We are going to combine them there in an upgrader. How does that work for Canada?We have an industry with real problems, public relations problems in the extreme with the sale of a product that we cannot manage. Moreover, we cannot maximize the return on investments. We are squandering our resources on quick and dirty action in those oil sands. That is what is happening.How can we as Canadians make a decision today about the value of transferring the ownership of one Canadian company to a state-owned enterprise in China when we do not have a plan that we can point to for the people who are taking over the industry, saying that this is what we want them to accomplish if they come into the country, that this is how we want them to develop our country? It is not there.What about our neighbours, the United States? What do they think about this? There is bipartisan horror at the idea of turning over 1.3 million acres of Gulf of Mexico oil leases to the Chinese. Why is that? It is because the U.S. understands the nature of offshore oil. They understand that the goal in their country is to develop the resources so that they are energy independent. They know that very well. That is why they are standing up. They are standing up for the interests of the United States.Two weeks ago I brought up the matter of the leases in the Arctic. We just gave up a lease in the Arctic of over 900,000 square hectares to a company with almost no assets, a company that we knew was going to turn around and sell it to someone else, maybe the Russians, the Koreans, or the Chinese, who have icebreakers and deep sea drilling capacity. Does our minister even have the power to say no to a transfer? No, he does not under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act that governs northern petroleum development. He does not have the ability to say no to a transfer.Right across this country, we are failing our children and our grandchildren with our laissez-faire approach to an industry and energy source that countries right around the world are standing up for themselves and taking advantage of us for. That is what is happening right around the world.Where is Canada? It is without a strategy, without a direction, flailing in the wind. That is a terrible thing to have to say in this Parliament.Here we have a chance to change it. If the Conservatives get onside and start holding public hearings on these issues that are so important to us, that can make the difference. Stand up for Canada. Make a difference.China National Offshore Oil CorporationEnergy and fuelForeign investments in CanadaGovernment policyInquiries and public inquiriesInvestment Canada ActMergers and acquisitionsNexen Inc.Oil and gasOpposition motionsResearch and researchersSplitting speaking timeJohnCarmichaelDon Valley WestDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nexen]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, the national energy strategy that I spoke of is supported by the premiers, including Premier Redford of Alberta, and the oil industry. We are not talking about nationalization but about standing up for Canadian interests.That is why everyone is lined up except the Conservatives. What is wrong with their ideological approach? They should get rid of it and start thinking pragmatically about what is important for Canada. When they do that, the industry and the provinces will follow them and everyone will be extremely grateful. When you continue to stonewall proper action for the sake of the Canadian future in the energy industry and energy generally, you are doing all of us a disservice.China National Offshore Oil CorporationForeign investments in CanadaInquiries and public inquiriesInvestment Canada ActMergers and acquisitionsNexen Inc.Opposition motionsDeanDel MastroPeterboroughBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Nexen]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, right across the country there quite clearly has been a profound recognition over the last decade about the nature of energy. That is part of all of our psyches right now. We understand how important energy is and how much it will lead almost every issue in the future.Now we have the situation of a country that likely will be one of the strongest economies in the future. It is moving very rapidly in that direction. It is a country that needs the resources for itself and is going around the world now making strategic investments in resources in many countries.Without dealing with that country in a positive and strong fashion, and without laying out to that country, or any other agency, business or any other part of the industry, a very clear understanding of what they are getting into when they invest in Canada, we are really selling ourselves short.We do not know what the Chinese will accomplish, but they will not accomplish what we want unless we lay that out clearly for everyone to understand and put some weight behind it as a country and nation the way we can and should do.China National Offshore Oil CorporationForeign investments in CanadaInquiries and public inquiriesInvestment Canada ActMergers and acquisitionsNexen Inc.Opposition motionsAndrewCashDavenportBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsArctic IceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, this summer Canadians experienced weather extremes like none in history causing droughts in eastern Ontario and the failure of fruit crops in southwestern Ontario. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported the highest August temperature since 1885, resulting in drought in the Midwestern states and devastating the corn crop. A report by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephen Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin showed that the extreme weather is directly related to the loss of Arctic summer ice cover. This month, Arctic sea ice declined to its lowest level ever, beating the previous record set in 2007. The North Pole's ice cap is now 50% below what it was in 1979 to 2000. Francis and Vavrus have shown that the increased loss of Arctic summer ice cover is adding enough heat to the ocean and atmosphere to redirect the jet stream, the fast-moving high-altitude river of air that steers weather systems across the northern hemisphere. The sixth lowest Arctic sea ice extents have occurred during the past six years. As a result of such extensive sea ice melt, the study says that the jet stream is behaving differently. It is becoming slower with bigger troughs and ridges. As more ice melts, the dark ocean is revealed, absorbing more solar energy and heating the water. The heat is released back into the atmosphere in the fall and winter increasing the air temperatures over the Arctic, which in turn reduces the temperature differential between the air in the Arctic and the air further south. Historically, this temperature differential has driven the jet stream, which circles the earth from west to east and forms a barrier between the atmospheres in the Arctic and elsewhere. However, as the temperature difference has declined between the north and the south, the speed of the jet stream has slowed by about 20% in the last few decades. Additionally, as the jet stream has slowed and its north-south movements have become more pronounced, generally moving further north. When it does move south, these intrusions are heading further than previously. The changing jet stream is the main culprit behind the increasingly extreme weather events. The known negative impacts of these extreme weather events are crop failures across North America and higher food prices. For example, it has been estimated that as much as 70% of the U.S. corn crop failed this year because of drought in the Midwestern states. The apple crop in southwestern Ontario failed due to a period of unusually high temperature in March and farmers in eastern Ontario are paying as much as $140 for a bale of hay due to drought this July. The failure of the U.S. corn crop alone will result in food costs as high as 80% to 90% for food on grocery shelves containing corn. Meanwhile, beef, pork and dairy farmers are now reporting that they will have to decrease the size of their herds as they cannot afford the fodder, which will result in more shortage and drive costs up.Potential negative impacts from higher food prices include increased unemployment, criminality and civil unrest. Lower crop and animal yields will likely increase unemployment in the food processing industry as fewer people will be required to prepare the food. People in southwestern Ontario who work in the fruit industry will have no jobs while cattle, pork and dairy farmers will lay off hands in order to afford fodder for their animals. These job losses will have a ripple effect across all sectors. Demands for goods and services will be reduced.Further, as we have seen increased theft of gas due to higher prices, so will increased food prices result in theft. As history has shown, increased food costs or shortages have resulted in civil unrest—ArcticArctic OceanClimate and weatherClimate change and global warmingCostsDroughtFood supplySea iceAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsArctic IceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1535)[English]Deus impeditio esuritori nullus: no god can stop a hungry man. The Russian revolution, for example, began with riots over lack of food. For these reasons, the House must immediately debate how Canada will deal with the increasing Arctic sea ice melt and the disastrous effect it is having on our weather systems, agriculture and economy.ArcticArctic OceanClimate change and global warmingCostsDroughtFood supplySea iceAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFaster Removal of Foreign Criminals ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, my concern really lies with the concentration of power in the hands of a minister, which is discretionary over the admission of temporary residents. I think back to that particular minister and his record in revoking the admission of George Galloway, which then went through the court in Ontario. The judge came back and castigated the minister for what he had done.With this kind of power now residing in the hands of the minister, does it mean that, for public policy purposes, he could prevent politicians and journalists he did not like and people of that nature from entering this country?C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection ActDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersForeign personsGovernment billsOffendersSecond readingJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFaster Removal of Foreign Criminals ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will be sharing my time.We are supporting this bill's going forward at second reading, with some very strong reservations. As we have seen throughout the debate here today, the reservations speak to a number of issues in the bill that certainly involve moving further than simply the faster removal of foreign criminalsOne issue we have great concern about is the concentration of more power in the hands of the minister, giving him the discretionary ability based on public policy considerations to restrict the entrance of foreign nationals, making them inadmissible for up to 36 months.We have seen the parliamentary secretary stand up and admit that on the face of it, this is very controversial and really needs a lot of work. I think back to what has happened during my time in Parliament and the minister's actions. At his discretion, he refused entrance into Canada of former British MP George Galloway. In a resulting court case, Mr. Galloway challenged the minister over this. The Ontario supreme court came out with a 60-page decision castigating the minister for exercising this authority in that way that excluded Mr. Galloway based on certain political considerations.Therefore, we really have to be very careful with this. This is treading into an area that has been a minefield in Canada in the past. I think back to the period before the Second World War, when we refused massive numbers of refugees from Eastern Europe because of political considerations, not because they were bad people or criminals who were going to cause a lot of trouble in Canada. No, it was because political factors were taken into consideration. If we are moving back in a direction of looking at political considerations and opening up that door where we have not been for a while, I think it is something we have to look at very carefully.We are relieving the minister of the responsibility of looking at humanitarian circumstances in these matters, where human beings' lives are being altered irrevocably by the decisions we are making, and not making the minister look at the situation created by the acts of Canadians officials in expelling people from the country. I think that is really not in the Canadian mould. We tend to say that we believe in the sanctity of families, that we believe in the importance of paying careful attention to children, to the kinds of things that tie people together in a particular instance. To simply say that we are going to relieve the minister of that responsibility needs some definite explanation. Why should the minister not want to have some ability to deal with this? Why should this not be part of his responsibility? When we have an impact upon people's lives, we need to understand that it is our responsibility and that we need to look at those things in the context they are presented. It is not that simple.One provision that I find very difficult is the proposed increase in the penalty for misrepresentation. We are all MPs here. We all have offices. We all see people coming in, immigrants, landed immigrants, and people who are looking to get their parents or children into the country. The forms can lend themselves to mistakes.(1620)The difference between a mistake and a misrepresentation is sometimes a very narrow line. When it comes to someone's educational qualifications, he or she may say, “I went to school there. I graduated there”. Is that acceptable? Can he or she prove it? Are there other issues that come into the presentation or the information that may need some clarification?We need to look very hard at what “misrepresentation” means and what it entails. That can be done in committee. How can we define it carefully so we are not simply shutting people who make a mistake out of the country. We have to be very careful with that. It is something that can lead to all kinds of problems for people.What constitutes “serious criminality?” This is something we have had a good debate on today. Quite obviously, when we move from a sentence of two years down to a sentence of six months, we are moving the bar pretty low. We are taking that bar right down so the ability of someone to get under it will be much more difficult. We really need to understand it. I assume the committee will go through some statistical analysis of what it will mean, what kind of offences have been generated that produce a sentence of six months in contrast to those that would produce sentences of two years.Certainly, we have all seen people go to prison for six months for fairly minor offences that do not justify the disruption of their family life or taking them away from employer, if they happen to be good employees, doing all of that for something that is criminal but not necessarily of a serious nature. Therefore, the definition really needs work.It will be interesting to see how it comes back from committee and what happens with the bill, what kinds of amendments and definitions are struck so we can truly understand how this will impact society.I trust the Conservatives will follow the example the parliamentary secretary set with the one particular passage in the bill that he clearly stated needed work. We need an understanding of the whole bill in a very careful fashion, which can come through committee. After that, we can see whether the bill will be acceptable to this party. I am sure there will be further consideration of that.These are important issues which are not to be taken lightly. I trust the government will go into that committee with the good intention of really coming to grips with this bill.C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection ActDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersDiscretionary powersForeign personsGovernment billsGovernment policyMinister of Citizenship, Immigration and MulticulturalismOffendersPolitical influenceSecond readingSerious crimeSplitting speaking timePierreDionne LabelleRivière-du-NordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFaster Removal of Foreign Criminals ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, over the past seven years as an MP, I have seen many people turned down visiting Canada, joining their family here. I had the example of that rather forcefully put to me about a week ago in Yellowknife, when a fellow told me that his grandparents would never get to see their children in Canada. That example speaks to the problem that exists in the immigration system, where we view people with a jaundiced eye when it comes to their motives.Now we are going to add on another characteristic where a person's entire family will be under scrutiny in order for it visit Canada. We have another piece that will make it more difficult for family reconciliation, or the humanitarian comfort that we seem to want to deny people who come to our country to build the country, to make it a success. We put all these burdens on them. This is one that also deserves great attention.C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection ActDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersFamilies and childrenForeign personsGovernment billsOffendersSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthTarikBrahmiSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFaster Removal of Foreign Criminals ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, once again, “misrepresentation” is a very interesting word. Are we to go in front of a judge to determine whether someone has lied or has simply made a mistake on his or her form? No, it will probably be done by somebody in an embassy in Turkey, for instance, where someone would look at the thing and say that its not correct, that the person did not do that, and that is the end of it. In the experience of it in my office, that is where many of these many misrepresentation issues start and finish.This concept of increasing the time to five years on an issue that is already a very difficult issue is something we have to deal with very carefully.In fact, if we were to get some clarity on “misrepresentation” within the bill, that may actually help the situation generally in our country, so we can ensure our embassy staff worldwide are very well-acquainted with understanding the importance of determining the difference between “misrepresentation” and “mistake”.Allegations of fraud and fraudC-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection ActDeportation, extradition and removal of foreignersForeign personsGovernment billsOffendersSecond readingTarikBrahmiSaint-JeanJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersClimate ChangeInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, this week melting Arctic sea ice set a new record. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that in mid-September Arctic ice covered 3.4 million square kilometres, beating the record set in 2007 when it measured 4.2 million square kilometres.Scientists are now predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the summer by 2020, previously they had predicted 2050 as the ice-free date.However, the melting Arctic Ocean is only part of the picture. This summer 97% of the Greenland ice cap was melting. The people of the north are seeing changing weather patterns with high temperatures and unusually strong storms, including the largest storm over the Arctic Ocean this summer. Three large chunks of ice broke off ice shelves in the Arctic this summer. The largest was a piece the size of Bermuda off the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on Ellesmere Island.When will the government recognize the crisis that is rapidly overtaking the Arctic? When will we see action that means something on climate change? What is holding the government back?ArcticArctic OceanClimate change and global warmingSea iceStatements by MembersMauriceVellacottSaskatoon—WanuskewinKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodEconomic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives sold off 9,000 square kilometres of the Beaufort Sea for pennies to a shell company and yesterday the government could not even begin to say why they did it. The CEO of the company says that either the Russians or the Koreans might be interested in this lease. The minister had the power under the law to reject the deal, but he did not.Why did the Conservatives sell off Canadian resources like this?Beaufort SeaEconomic developmentInvitation to tenderOffshore technologyOil and gas leasesOral questionsMikeLakeHon.Edmonton—Mill Woods—BeaumontGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodEconomic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, remember that we are talking about a company with $220 in the bank and a corporate value of minus $32,000 at its last filing. That is the guy who got the lease, someone who wants to get the backing of the Koreans or Russians to get rich. Industry observer Paul Ziff rightly points out this would never happen in the North Sea. At least the U.K. has some concern about who takes its resources.Why did the Conservatives sell off this lease to a fly-by-night company in one of the most environmentally-sensitive areas of the country, one of the places where drilling and exploration is most controversial right now?Beaufort SeaEconomic developmentInvitation to tenderOffshore technologyOil and gas leasesOral questionsGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncreasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to express my congratulations to you on your recent elevation to the Speaker's chair in the Deputy Speaker role. Your acknowledged expertise in Parliament, with winning the Maclean's/Dominion Institute Awards as Canada's “Most Knowledgeable” Parliamentarian three times in a row, puts you in a position of considerable support from the entire House for the work that you will do. I hope it all goes very successfully for you. I am sure you will work very well with our Speaker and the Acting Speakers to make the House more reasonable and acceptable to Canadians. I think that is the goal of all of us here. It is a wonderful goal and something for which we should be pushing very hard.On Bill C-37, first, I would like to deal with the issue of why the NDP would support a bill that would ostensibly take away some discretion from judges and put it into the hands of legislation.We have to look at the past six months in Parliament to see that many of the bills we wanted to discuss in committee were rammed through. We did not really spend much time on important legislation, legislation that will now have an impact. Thinking back to Bill C-38, we heard from some witnesses who said that they were in favour of the provisions in the bill on the environment, but that it needed some changes. These people liked the legislation, but thought it required amendment to make the bill better. However, there were no amendments at all to that huge omnibus bill and it was rammed through Parliament. Every Canadian may feel the impact of legislation that is not properly constructed and given due attention. In this Parliament, the ability to bring something like this forward to committee is an excellent opportunity. There are people who should be heard. Judges need to be heard. Over previous years, judges have used their discretion quite often not to put a victim surcharge in place. We need to understand why those judges made that decision and why they judged that it was the correct thing to do. We need to understand what it was should that discretion over the victim surcharge be maintained. Upon hearing their opinion, we may get closer to what the bill can accomplish.We talked a bit about the fine option program. That exists in the Northwest Territories, which I represent, and that program works very well. Not only does it provide low-income Canadians with an option to deal with the added financial responsibility after a criminal charge has been given to them, along with all the other problems it causes in their lives, but in the small communities I represent it really brings people back into the community. It allows them to show that they are willing to work with the community again, that they have attributes and a good side, which can be displayed with these fine option programs. Over and over we see people under the fine options program taking care of seniors by cleaning their driveways, mowing their lawns or doing all kinds of nice work that brings them back into the community in a real fashion. There are other options that have people out on the land. There may be a variety of activities. They are not costed that well because the cost is not the important part of that program.(1325)The important part of that program is the rehabilitation it provides. If this bill in any way encourages the other provinces and territories to take on a fine option program to match up with this, because the increased fines will be so difficult for many low income people to deal with, that may be a good outcome of the bill. It will encourage those other provinces and territories to get onside with the fine option program, something that works well.On the other side of it, victims services in the Northwest Territories are probably in the millions of dollars a year. Yet, if we look at the total number of charges and convictions and the amount of money that is raised, we can see that this surcharge is only a small part of what society puts into victims services. It has to be.It is really not about the money. It is about creating an atmosphere where people understand that what they have done has hurt others and they have an opportunity to remedy that through a financial contribution, which may take something off it, but there is also this fine option program where they actually have to interact with the community. The community understands they under a fine option and they understand they are working off some problem that they created. That is very useful for the justice system.I do not want to see the provincial or territorial fine option program turn out to be something that does not deliver to the victims. Offenders could end up in the fine option program working off their time, but where is the money for the victims? Do they have to wait until the time is worked off? That might be an amendment we could look at to ensure that if victims' compensation is to be delivered that, it is done in a timely fashion to the victims who have an opportunity to get some services or support for whatever has beset them through the crime that has occurred. The victims should have some opportunity to get that as soon as possible.There are some issues there that would require a careful look at this. The position of the judges needs to be understood more fully. Canadian judges, by and large, across the country represent a very large and significant volume of justice, understanding and experience with handling criminal cases. Canada has an enormous record of making criminals out of our citizens. The judges are there for all of that.Bringing this bill forward and taking a look at what it actually means is the sensible thing to do right now. It is a good thing for Parliament to do as well. I do not want to go through the exercise we went through last June when the government rammed through the omnibus bill with no consideration of the finer points of any of those legislation changes. The sheer stupidity of that will play out in Canada for many years to come.C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeCriminal liabilityCriminal rehabilitationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsJudicial discretionNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingVictim surchargeVictims of crimeSadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development handed 900,000 hectares of oil and gas rights in the Beaufort Sea to Franklin Petroleum. Owned by a husband and wife in England, last year Franklin had $220 in the bank and a corporate value of minus $32,000. It is unlikely that this company will do any work. These rights, with a massive oil and gas potential, can now be transferred to anyone by only sending a letter to the minister.Why did the minister fail to protect this valuable resource by exercising his authority under the law and—Beaufort SeaFranklin PetroleumOffshore technologyOil and gasOral questionsGregRickfordKenoraAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—The Canadian Economy]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the keys to success is always being able to work and co-operate with others. This November, the premiers of the provinces and territories are meeting in Halifax at the national economic summit, organized by the Council of the Federation. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be a no-show.From a northern perspective, a major concern is the proposed European free trade agreement that would affect government programs aimed at helping to economically develop the north, for example, the NWT's business incentive policy. The business incentive policy gives preference to registered northern businesses in the Northwest Territories for the government's purchase of products and services. This policy applies to all contracts entered into directly by the Government of the Northwest Territories.Under the policy, the Government of the Northwest Territories supports the creation and growth of competitive businesses as a foundation in the Northwest Territories' economy and will, when purchasing goods, services or construction, provide an incentive to NWT-based businesses that recognizes the higher costs of operating business and manufacturing products in our territory. This encourages Northwest Territories-based businesses to create employment and develop necessary experience and business skills and complies with any intergovernmental agreements to which the GNWT must adhere.It is the last bit that concerns northerners. They wonder if the European free trade deal would mean the end of BIP.The Prime Minister could allay these concerns by meeting with the northern leaders and the provincial premiers and ensuring that this vital policy is protected.Another issue that could be discussed is how to properly encourage economic development in the north.The key phrase for northern economic development is stewardship. Northerners know that economic development in the north means, for the most part, natural resource development. We know the government's approach is to exploit the north's natural resources as fast as possible and damn the consequences, much as the Liberals before them.A better approach is to sustainably develop resources, to shepherd resources to ensure the longest life of the development to ensure the maximum level of job creation. That is the way northerners look at development. We look at how we can benefit from those developments and how we can build our society. Proper resource development ensures that the environment is protected. Northerners have learned the hard way that setting standards and maintaining them is the only way to protect ourselves against development. If we do not have that, then the public ends up cleaning up the mess. One only has to look at Giant Yellowknife mines right now where, once the environmental assessment is finished, the federal government will be on the hook for about a half a billion dollars to clean up the mess that is left there.Another area that the Prime Minister could discuss with northern leaders is how to improve public infrastructure, which would not only aid economic development in the north but improve the life of northerners by reducing costs and, in many regards, would be the best way to strengthen Arctic sovereignty.The Prime Minister is great at making promises to northerners, but we are still waiting for him to live up to them. For example, take the long-promised harbour at Iqaluit. It is not there yet. We can also consider the airport in Iqaluit, which needs a $400 million upgrade. These are infrastructure improvements that are absolutely essential to the functioning of Nunavut.Improving housing is another type of infrastructure that really needs improvement. The cost of constructing new, healthy homes based on southern Canadian standards has gone through the roof. In addition to the high costs of construction, living in the homes is just as expensive. In addition to the high cost of energy, utility costs are astronomical. The provision of water and sewer service in remote northern communities is invariably by truck: haul it in, haul it out.The Prime Minister could discuss with northern leaders ways of reducing the high cost of living in the north. Rather than importing a southern lifestyle, we should be developing a sustainable northern lifestyle.In practical terms, regarding the northern cost of living, sustainability can apply to supply systems, attitudes, materials, local economics and consumption practices. Societal tools for influencing sustainability include full market pricing, based on a complete understanding of all costs such as education, advertisement, incentives, regulations and policy.One has to view the whole situation in the north to understand what has gone wrong with this attempt to recreate a southern lifestyle north of 60. One example is the cost of heating a home or a business in the north. For most communities in northern Canada, which are beyond the range of a natural gas pipeline or a major electrical grid, in terms of heating costs the last decade has been pure hell.(1705)Over that time, the majority of Canadians enjoyed natural gas prices, which really were no different than they were at the start of the decade. Meanwhile, northern homes and businesses supplied by imported fuel oil have seen their prices go up 300% or 400%. Considering that the number of days requiring heat in homes in the north are double that of southern Canada, the magnitude of the problem becomes apparent. The system is not working for us.At the same time, these communities generate electricity from the same fuel oil used for heating. The cost to run the coolers and freezers at grocery stores is over 10 times what it would be in Toronto or Ottawa. The increased cost of energy adds to the high cost of food for sale in the stores. Food and energy are linked together in Canada's north just as they are across the world, but in our case to a greater degree of unsustainability.Transportation of people, goods and energy is another area where cost surge from high energy prices have been an Achilles Heel to the southern lifestyle imported to the north. In the north, distances are great and roads are poor or non-existent. Air travel is based on low volume, small planes and high prices. It can cost more to fly from Edmonton to Yellowknife than from the Alberta capital to Europe. The already costly petroleum needed to heat homes, generate electricity and power automobiles goes up even more when the high cost of northern transport is added in. These high transport costs are reflected in the high cost of food in the north, which is imported from the south.Yes, there are many things that the Prime Minister could meet on and talk in public with our leaders from the territories and provinces. Many of the problems that northern provinces have are the same as in the northern territories. We need discussion. We need support to come up with better solutions that promote sustainability rather than subsidized lifestyles that are at great risk at all times.There has been a call right across the country for a national energy strategy, from provinces, industry and people on the street. They are all saying that we should get together on this, act like other countries in a sane and rational fashion and form the vision of what we have for a Canadian energy system. Why is the Prime Minister not willing to meet with the premiers who have themselves indicated that they want to do this and have pushed it forward on their agenda? Why is the Prime Minister not able to engage with the premiers on this issue? Why is he content to leave it alone?This is not the way to govern this federation. We need the Prime Minister to actively engage with the other leaders in the country. We encourage him to do this through this motion today. We plead with him. It is better for the country that he do that. I hope the Prime Minister is listening today to this debate, that he recognizes the importance of the debate that we are having and why this party is putting this motion forward at this time.AirportsBusiness Incentive PolicyCity of HalifaxCost of livingCouncil of the FederationEconomic policyEnergy and fuelEuropean UnionFirst Ministers meetingsFree tradeGovernment contractsGovernment policyHousingInfrastructureIqaluitNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesOpposition motionsPorts and harboursSustainable developmentNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—The Canadian Economy]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, my short answer would be to chuckle at those remarks. I apologize to the member because I really do not view it in the same fashion that he does.The north needs real answers on energy, there is no question about it. We have some going on right now and we are making changes within our territory. We have something to offer the other territories as well, but we need to bring this together in a national energy strategy. I feel very confident that we can make these changes, but we need the support of the federal government across the country and the understanding that this is not simply a problem of the Northwest Territories, it is a problem for all of us. That is what standing up and talking about a national energy strategy and willing to commit to that debate will create in the country.Economic developmentEconomic policyNorthern CanadaOpposition motionsStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—AssiniboiaBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodParks CanadaInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I give my best wishes to indigenous people and all Canadians on National Aboriginal Day.Northerners know the economic benefits national parks bring through increased tourism. With the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve and the creation of the East Arm National Park, northerners have shown their commitment to these heritage sites. However, with the Conservatives reckless cuts to Parks Canada, northerners are concerned that this vital form of sustainable economic development will be delayed or severely crippled.Why is the minister cutting back on the government's promise to fully fund these northern parks? Is it the government's opinion that parks do not create jobs?Budget cutsNahanni National Park Reserve of CanadaNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesOral questionsParks Canada AgencyThaidene Nene National Park ReservePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACTInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for basically asking us what we do not like about this deal with Panama. Quite clearly, Panama is a country that encourages tax evasion and money laundering. Its structure is one where there are literally hundreds and hundreds of paper corporations established in that country to take advantage of its lax rules. Does the hon. member have an understanding of what it is costing the Canadian economy for these types of activities: tax evasion, money laundering and the kinds of things the Panamanian government has refused consistently to fall into line on with international standards? Does the member have an answer to that?Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaFree tradeGovernment billsMoney launderingPanamaSecond readingSetting of standardsTax evasionEdHolderLondon WestEdHolderLondon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACTInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister is looking for the support of the New Democratic Party, obviously, for this free trade deal. We have said over and over again that free trade must be based on consistent ethical behaviour on the part of those countries in the development of these relationships.Quite clearly Panama, with its reputation for money laundering and its worldwide reputation for tax evasion, is one of those counties that is under question. We have heard some evidence that it has made some improvements in tax evasion, but at the same time, how are we guaranteed that this relationship will not actually lead to Canadian companies having more opportunities to move into areas of ethical behaviour that are really not appropriate?If we are going into a free trade arrangement with a country that has a lower moral and ethical business environment, and we are bringing our companies in there on the basis of increased free trade, how is that going to improve the standing of Canadian companies in the world in a way we can respect as Canadians?Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaCanadian companiesEthics and ethical issuesFree tradeGovernment billsPanamaSecond readingSetting of standardsSocial responsibilityPeterMacKayHon.Central NovaPeterMacKayHon.Central Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACTInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I noted my colleague's comments about not taking Canadian standards to other countries. After the budget implementation bill that was just passed and the environmental standards in it, we have brought different environmental standards to this country, which are really not appropriate.When the hon. member talks about the need to be magnanimous toward other countries in terms of their ability to move forward on the environment, and social and economic issues surrounding tax issues, he is really missing the boat. What is happening in this country with this budget implementation bill is driving down our standards, whereas we should be putting standards forward for other countries which are more appropriate.Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaC-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental protectionFree tradeGovernment billsPanamaSecond readingSetting of standardsMikeWallaceBurlingtonMikeWallaceBurlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersJobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2140)[English]Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with Ducks Unlimited in the last two weeks. Its concerns around this legislation were quite strong. We have lost 70% of the wetlands in Canada. The Conservative side has made much about drainage in farmers' fields. Ducks Unlimited said to me in my office that drainage in farmers' fields is an issue. The wetlands in this country that have been lost are important. So when we talk about drainage on any large piece of land, there has to be some understanding of the impact that draining that land would have on the environment. Installing a culvert is not a simple matter.I would like to ask my colleague from the Prairies, where the wetlands are in so much danger, what she thinks we should do to promote wetlands in this country. How does she think we should move ahead with that, considering the great problem we have?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionWetlandsMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-NorthMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He mentioned that within the environmental assessment laws, which are to be gutted and mangled by this bill, there would be provisions for the transfer of environmental assessments to provincial regimes where equivalency is available.In this world of environmental assessment where there are ever increasing projects and lesser land, air and water available, one of the most critical issues within an environmental assessment is cumulative impact assessment, namely how to assess projects in relation to other projects in similar regions.I know that the legislation the government has brought forward still contains cumulative impact assessments. However, interestingly enough, there is only one province that has this within its purview. Therefore, equivalency in environmental assessment in this country for some of the more critical issues is really not very strong between what exists in the provinces and what is required under federal legislation.Does my colleague think that in Ontario, which lacks cumulative impact assessment, projects conducted under its provincial legislation rather than federal legislation would be invalid?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsJob creationReport stageEdKomarnickiSouris—Moose MountainEdKomarnickiSouris—Moose Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight on an issue I raised earlier this year with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. In the Northwest Territories, the biomass energy strategy of conversion of large buildings to this form of energy for heating has been an unqualified success. The program has been carried out for the last two to three years. We are seeing much reduced costs in heating these large buildings. We are seeing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of a considerable amount through the use of biomass energy, mostly from waste products from sawmills in Alberta and British Columbia.This is a very big opportunity for northern Canada to reduce its cost of living. These opportunities provide energy that is clean and that has very good environmental characteristics in terms of handling and carrying. The wood pellets that are being employed are half the cost of the most common heating feature in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut, which is home heating oil. In fact, 175 communities across northern Canada rely almost entirely on this product, which is very expensive.Therefore, my question for the minister was, as the Department of Public Works and other government agencies have many large buildings throughout northern Canada, did the government have a program or had it considered a program that would convert these buildings in northern Canada to this new-found heating source?If this were accomplished, we would see that the market for the product would grow very quickly in the three territories. The federal government could be a shining example of how to buy into a successful program. We would see the volumes go up. This is not a small affair. The use of fuel oil in the three territories are in excess of half a billion dollars in costs for heating throughout those three territories, whether in homes, commercial buildings or in industrial facilities.The federal government's role in this as a promoter of clean energy would be very useful to the north. The conversion of its buildings' heating to wood pellets or this renewable form of energy would provide an extra market for entrepreneurs to develop supply chains to supply this product throughout the north and many smaller users, such as residences and small businesses, would benefit from this transfer.It is a very simple, straightforward question. Will the government consider this program? Will it work toward the directions that are turning out to be successful in the north and work with northerners to make a better life for ourselves?Adjournment ProceedingsBiomass energyGovernment facilitiesNorthwest TerritoriesMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-NorthMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (2410)[English]Mr. Speaker, in reality there is no need for technological development. There is no need to actually even come up with the capital. Private enterprise has taken hold in this market throughout the north, but without the federal government actually putting its buildings up for conversion, even the private enterprise cannot enter into that market. With the federal government not having a program that says it wants to convert, this will not happen. If it simply puts out tenders to provide heating for its buildings over a period of years, we will see that the competitive prices that it achieves from those tenders will spur the industry. It is not really a very difficult conversion for the government to make; it simply has to have the will to do it. I encourage the government to go ahead with that.Adjournment ProceedingsBiomass energyGovernment facilitiesNorthwest TerritoriesMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-NorthMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cannot seem to answer questions here and they will not in committee. Yesterday, when I asked the minister if he would be cutting funding for the Northwest Territories protected area strategy. a vital program that allows northerners to determine what areas should have enhanced environmental protection, he refused to answer.My question is for the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. Instead of stopping questions for the minister in a fit of partisanship, will he be scheduling another meeting so that the minister can answer these reasonable questions?Committee witnessesDeclining to answer questionsDuncan, JohnEnvironmental protectionMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest Territories Protected Areas StrategyOral questionsReferences to membersStanding Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentGregRickfordKenoraGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCanada Post Corporation ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-321, a bill that my colleague from Brandon—Souris has put forward on a number of occasions in this House of Commons. I am glad to see that it is moving toward completion for him. He has been an excellent proponent for this particular service and also a very good chair of the transportation committee, on which I served for three years. I am pleased to do this for him.Since 1939, Canada Post has set a reduced postal rate for library materials. However, this is under a corporate policy. It is not under legislation.Over 2,000 libraries regularly use the library book rate. The library book rate is not a government program and it is not currently financed by the Conservative government. Therefore, I think my colleague will find support on his side of the House for the bill because it will not cost the penurious government any money.The ability of Canada's libraries to transfer materials across the country at a low rate allows Canadians in rural and remote locations to have access to the same materials as those who live in large urban centres. For me, growing up in the Northwest Territories when libraries were the dominant form of knowledge and information, this service was absolutely required.Through this program, the Ulukhaktok Community Library on Victoria Island in the High Arctic has the same access to library materials as the Toronto Public Library, through the national libraries.The rate contributes to the public policy goals of literacy, lifelong learning and vibrant rural and remote communities. Of course, the new information age has assisted greatly in communities across northern Canada. Improvements to other forms of delivery for those information services are still required and those still should be pushed forward.Access to knowledge is an essential part of democracy. However, in this latest Conservative budget, we see that the Conservatives are opposed to knowledge. They are opposed to the dissemination of knowledge. They are opposed to the collection of knowledge on the part of the public. We see this over and over again in the budget implementation bill. I want to speak specifically to libraries because the Conservatives are also gutting the National Library Service, the very repository of knowledge and information and the very people who not only collect the knowledge but also create ways to disseminate the knowledge across the country to those thousands of libraries that exist in Canada. Library and Archives Canada is subject to $9.6 million in cuts over the next three years. Twenty per cent of the staff are being cut. This is a shameful situation in a country where the use of knowledge is so important to the development of our economy and to the development of our citizens in a good and equitable fashion across the whole country.The inter-library loan program is being cut. The very program that the bill would help support across the country is being cut by the Conservative government and through the cuts to the national libraries.We have a good-intentioned bill that is being superseded by these massive cuts that are taking place at our national libraries.Also, within that, the national archival development program is being cut. Across the country, the development of archives, which can hold the information, hold the history of this country, is being cut. The country's history is rich right across the whole country. We need this kind of archival development program in my territory, especially because much of the history is oral and is not easily available. We need to have ways that we can preserve this over time. We heard that libraries are being closed at many government departments. The libraries at Agriculture Canada, Environment Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Industry Canada, the National Capital Commission, National Defence, Public Works, the Public Service Commission and Transport Canada are gone. The formation is gone. The availability of information and the people who understand the information and can provide it to others are gone.(1115)Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has already announced the closure of its library. That information is gone and those people who can provide that information to others right across the country are gone. Canadians expect to have access to a vast wealth of materials managed by Llibrary and Archives Canada. What is going on with this picture?Canadian Library Association president Karen Adams said, in part:Our national library and archives has a broad mandate to acquire, preserve and make available the documentary heritage of Canada. It is also responsible for the management of the archival records of government. Even before the [latest round of] cuts, Library and Archives Canada was challenged to fulfill its mandate;...So what would we have? We have a situation where knowledge would be lost to Canadians; where the ability to deal with knowledge would be lost by Canadians; where the ability to understand what our country is all about, by Canadians through their public government, would disappear. Knowledge would be paid for. Knowledge would be hard to collect. Knowledge would be part of a system that, for Canadians, is so different from what we have expected over the years. This is a difficult situation. It is one that I hope my colleague who has put this bill forward will understand and will plead with his government to do something different from what it is doing today with information services in this country. It is utterly vital to the future of our country to have information that is well documented, well understood and that is presented to people. Librarians have those responsibilities. What we see here would be the denigration of our library system right across this country. What is going on this country today? What is the purpose of denying Canadians access to knowledge?Can the government ask those fundamental questions? Did it ask those fundamental questions or would it, in an idealistic orgy of cutting, just simply cut out this particular piece of our Canadian heritage and our Canadian future? What is going on?An hon. member: It's going backwards.Mr. Dennis Bevington: We are going backwards. I support what my colleague across the House is doing with his private member's bill, but I do not support what the government would do for information services in this country.Budget cutsC-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)Canada Post CorporationFederal institutionsLibraries and archivesLibrary and Archives of CanadaLibrary materialsNational Archival Development ProgramPostal ratesPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingLiseSt-DenisSaint-Maurice—ChamplainBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtecting Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with some interest. I disagree with his analysis of our position. I think that he is being disingenuous when he talks about the NDP supporting a bill that turns around a bill that we worked on in the last Parliament where we made compromises and came to conclusions. The former Bill C-11 was supported by all parties. However, this bill turns around many of the things that were included in that bill. Why does the hon. member think that in the short period of a year and a half we should turn around our thinking on an important issue such as refugees and the changes that are required to ensure that their part in Canada is well protected?C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration ActGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsRefugeesReport stageDavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, climate change is opening the Arctic Ocean to fishing for the first time. Currently there is no international agreement on Arctic Ocean fisheries. Over 2,000 global scientists have called upon the five Arctic coastal countries to hold back the start of commercial fishing in Arctic waters until research is done and management plans are in place.Canada knows how much damage is done by unregulated international fishing.In 2013 Canada will be the chair of the Arctic Council. Will the government show leadership and push for a treaty governing fishing in the Arctic?Agreements and contractsArctic fisheriesFisheries policyInternational relationsOral questionsPeterVan LoanHon.York—SimcoeRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' hastily announced hunting and angling advisory panel has angered Canada's first nations, Métis and Inuit with their exclusion. They see this action as another attempt by the government to cut them out of environmental decision-making. This is similar to the way the Conservatives want to dismantle environmental review boards in the Northwest Territories.At the same time, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will not reappoint the Inuit chair of the Nunavut Impact Review Board.Why do the Conservatives want to shut out first nations, Métis and Inuit from roles in protecting their lands and their resources?Endangered speciesFirst NationsHunting and Angling Advisory PanelHunting and sport fishingInuitMétisNature conservationOral questionsWetlandsRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionPeterVan LoanHon.York—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInternational Co-operationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition from quite a number of constituents in the western Northwest Territories in regard to Development and Peace, formerly known as the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, which is an important Canadian development organization. It works with partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America and in the Middle East. The work of Development and Peace is supported by Canadians across the country. The Canadian International Development Agency has been an important funding source for Development and Peace, giving $44.6 million from 2006 to 2011. CIDA recently announced significant cuts to this funding and it will provide only $14.5 million over the next five years. The petitioners continue to support the work of Development and Peace and object to the significant cut in funding by CIDA . They are asking the Government of Canada to reconsider augmenting its contribution levels to Development and Peace to 2006 levels or more. Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and PeaceInternational development and aidPetition 411-1182MichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton HillsJudyFooteHon.Random—Burin—St. George's//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtecting Canada's Immigration System Act [Bill C-31—Time allocation motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, it was just this morning that I received more emails in my mail pouch dealing with the issue of Bill C-31 and the concerns--An hon. member: He is a marsupial.Mr. Dennis Bevington: That is the green book parliamentarians have for their mail. It is a very useful device, no doubt.This issue is not dead in the population. The minister has agreed that the bill he first presented needed amendments. All the amendments that have been proposed have not been accepted. We are still in a position where there is great concern about the bill.The minister has brought two arguments forward. He says we have had enough debate, but at the same time he says he has a deadline. I would really like to understand from the minister if his real motive is the deadline, or if his motive is that he has heard too much on the bill and just simply wants to get it done.Amendments and subamendmentsC-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration ActGovernment billsImmigration and immigrantsRefugeesThird reading and adoptionTime allocationJasonKenneyHon.Calgary SoutheastJasonKenneyHon.Calgary Southeast//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sports and companion animals, that horses are not raised primarily as food-producing animals, that horses are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used at any time in all other food-producing animals destined for the human food supply and that Canadian horsemeat products that are currently being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain prohibited substances.Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-322, an act to amend the health of animals act and the meat inspection act, thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption)ExportsFood safetyHorsesImportsMeatPetition 411-1117ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to debate this particular legislation. I noticed my colleague in his speech pretty well stuck with the topic of the economy rather than actually speaking to this rather insignificant and poorly designed bill that the government put forward. I do not blame him for doing that, because that is the case.The Conservatives will say that, by bringing forward the bill, they have created something seniors. That is a very minor element and much of what is proposed in the bill can already be accomplished.When I was mayor of a little town, Fort Smith, we did not have a pension plan for our employees, but we did have a plan by which they could have a certain amount deducted from their paycheque to go into RRSPs for their use once they had finished their working careers. These types of arrangement can be made by companies. They were made by the community government I represented as mayor, and they carried forward. Were they successful? They were reasonably successful in some ways, but in other ways, because they were not mandatory but voluntary, they did not include a lot of issues. The municipality itself took the time to even enhance the value of these RRSPs, but still we found that many of the employees simply did not have the facility. They needed the money for their everyday life and did not participate in the program to the extent that we would have thought would have been appropriate. When we have these voluntary programs for employees who, in this day of Conservative economics, are getting less and less in their pay pocket at the end of the day, a voluntary program to encourage them to save for retirement seems rather difficult for them in many cases because they simply need the money to survive in this world.What we have is a program that may work for some people, but it is not a nation-building program that deserves the recognition of Parliament, that deserves the time and effort the government has put on Parliament to create. If this is the best it can do, it is certainly not adequate for Canadians, and that is what we see.We compare this pooled program to other programs around the world that do the same thing. Is there mandatory participation by employers? In Canada, there is not; in New Zealand, yes; in the United Kingdom, yes; in Australia, yes. Is there auto enrolment by employees? In the case of Canada, provided the employer chooses to offer a plan to that class of employees, there is an auto enrolment, but the employee has an opting out opportunity within 60 days for notifications for new PRPPs. Is there mandatory employer contribution? There is not; but in all three other programs we are looking at, yes, yes, yes. Is there a minimum employer contribution? In Canada there is none; in New Zealand, 2%; in the United Kingdom, 3%; in Australia, 9%. Is there a minimum employee contribution? In Canada there is none; in New Zealand, 2%; in the United Kingdom, 4%; in Australia, none. The government contribution is tax relief. In other cases, in Australia they top up by $1,000; there is an annual tax credit in New Zealand of $1,000. Are there provisions to allow employees to suspend contributions? Yes, and that is similar within the programs. Are employees restricted to a single lifetime savings plan? This is important, because in Canada the answer is no, in New Zealand, yes, and in the other two countries, no. However, we found with Australia's not having a single program and not having the ability to transfer programs that this causes a mushrooming number of savings accounts, and it emerged as a significant problem in Australia's superannuation program.(1120)By June 2010, there were 32.9 million super pension accounts in Australia, an average of three accounts per employee and almost double the number 15 years before. Many of them are inactive or are lost member accounts. It is a program that really does not work all that well when there are seasonal employees or employees moving from one business to another. We have seen voluntary pension pairing plans and pooled registered pension plans around the world and the one that is proposed by the Conservative government seems very weak. It seems to be mostly window dressing on things that could be accomplished and carried forward in a good fashion with the existing legislation and pension opportunities.We want to see something that is more universal and expands opportunities for the universal Canada pension plan, that raises contribution levels and creates greater defined benefits so people will know they have surety in their retirement and that they can work to the age of 65 and retire with dignity. Now the Conservatives are changing that as well by raising the age of retirement, not for those who are seniors now but for young people who will be entering the system. By young, I mean people under 50 years old, not really young, but they will see that change come about.What is the reaction within the population? We are seeing that seniors are moving to the NDP in greater and greater numbers across the country because seniors understand what it means when the age of retirement is changed from 65 to 67. They do not want to burden their children and grandchildren with that additional cost when the additional cost to the government turns out to be not that bad. It turns out that the Conservatives are overinflating the costs and creating panic in the system when the panic in the system does not need to happen. The Conservatives are once again living to their name: cons. They are working the Canadian public like we are rubes but seniors are not buying it. They are moving away from the Conservatives in droves right now because they understand the reality of what the government is doing.Mr. Bob Zimmer: Not the seniors in my riding.Mr. Dennis Bevington: One only has to look at the polling numbers to see that seniors are moving away from the Conservatives. Why are they doing that after the Conservatives introduced this notion of changing the retirement age from 65 to 67? It is because the seniors in this country understand what that means. People who are at the age of retirement understand what the Conservatives will be doing to their children and grandchildren, and they do not like it. I do not blame them. Fair is fair in this country. We have a system that says that the retirement age is 65, so let us keep it there. We need to make the adjustments on what it costs to maintain that program, not this tricky little measure of trying to promote it by saying that it is not really happening right now so people do not have to worry about it. What is that all about? We are here to make measured and careful decisions for the future of this country. The government is definitely doing that in a bad fashion. It should be held to account and will be by this side of the House going forward over the next three years until we can get rid of it.C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other ActsGovernment billsOld Age SecurityRegistered pension plansReport stageRetirement termsDeepakObhraiCalgary EastKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I would need to examine when the so-called endorsement of this took place, what particular details were laid out by the Conservative government to the Province of Manitoba, when it understood the nature of what was going on here and whether it accepted it simply because that was all that was being offered.I am not standing here in Parliament to promote things that are only half good for Canadians, a quarter good for Canadians or things that are already available to Canadians under the existing law. That is not why I am here. I am here in the hope that I can provide a better vision for where we can go with this country in the future.C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRegistered pension plansReport stageKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDeepakObhraiCalgary East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I am incredulous at the member across who, after having heard the debate over the F-35 fiasco, is telling me that somehow the government has given the facts on anything correctly to any other group in this country.The government has a record of totally obfuscating financing issues and of presenting things in such a fashion. I refer back to the budget implementation bill, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said that the bill would raise the borrowing limit for the Government of Northwest Territories when it was doing no such thing.How can we believe anything the government says? How can we understand anything it presented to the provinces six months or a year ago?C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRegistered pension plansReport stageDeniseSavoieVictoriaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, as I outlined, compared to other pooled pension plans across the world, this plan is very much remiss in this regard. Even with those plans, many people found that their contribution was left in an account and was turned into nothing.This is something that has not been addressed in this bill. This bill is inadequate and flawed, and does not need to be passed.C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRegistered pension plansReport stageJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development misled this House when he said a vote against the budget bill is a vote against increasing the borrowing limits of the three territories.The minister needs to do his homework, because in no way would the bill set borrowing limits. What the Trojan Horse budget bill would do is change the three northern constitutions to increase federal control.Is the minister completely out of touch with what his government is trying to do, or was he trying to mislead the House?Borrowing authorityFederal jurisdictionGovernment borrowingNorthern CanadaOral questionsTerritorial governmentLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the government is cutting regulations on the environment and on the other it is increasing regulations on the territorial governments. Last year, testimony before the aboriginal affairs committee from a senior official with the Government of the Northwest Territories made it clear they do not want federal control over borrowing. Instead of listening to the people in the north, the government wants to increase control by changing the northern constitutions without publicly consulting northerners.Why will the government not respect the political rights of northerners by allowing their legislatures to control their financial affairs, just like the provinces?Borrowing authorityFederal jurisdictionGovernment borrowingNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsTerritorial governmentLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSECOND READINGInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I note my colleague's comments about extra dollars in his pocket. I come from a territory where many people suffer with low income, not the income of parliamentarians that puts them in the top 5% of our country. Seniors and elders in my territory have worked hard all their lives and they will now have to add another couple of years on to that. They already have low incomes. While the quality of income is reducing, the member opposite, one of the top 5% of wage earners, talks about his ability to put an extra $3,000 in his pocket. I am insulted by that.We have to talk about equality. When we have wage inequality in the western world, the population suffers greater social and health concerns.How would my colleague respond to all those people who are not in the top 5% of wage earners, people who work hard to make a living and are now told they will have to work an extra couple of years just to get a pension?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsIncome distributionOld Age SecurityRetirement termsSecond readingSenior citizensMarkAdlerYork CentreMarkAdlerYork Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSECOND READINGInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one issue here. Within the cuts that have taken place, Parks Canada has been hammered viciously by the government.We saw the government talk with great enthusiasm about all of the great work it did with respect to increasing the size of the national parks in the Northwest Territories. Part of what was supposed to happen was a commitment to the people of the Northwest Territories that there would be some economic return, that these parks would be well managed and that they would increase tourism, but what do we see in the budget? We see huge cuts directly to national parks, cuts that will cause our economy not to get a boost from tourism. Where is the thinking there? On the one hand, the Conservatives love to take the credit for expanding national parks; on the other hand, they are slashing the budgets for these parks so that they cannot do the things they are supposed to do with that increased size.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingGregKerrWest NovaGregKerrWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSECOND READINGInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are many things about Bill C-38 that I could speak about, such as the total rewriting of Canada's environmental protection law, repealing the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, raising the age of retirement to 67, the elimination of the National Council of Welfare, the elimination of employment equity for federal contractors, weakening the Auditor General, having cabinet-approved pipelines rather than the arm's length National Energy Board and the gutting of the regional employment insurance appeal process. However, as the only member of the opposition from the three northern territories, I will speak about how the bill would change the three acts that could be considered the constitutions of the three territories without having consulted the people of the north.Clauses 214, 215 and 216 of Bill C-38 would amend the Northwest Territories Act, the Yukon Act and the Nunavut Act. They would amend these acts to give the federal cabinet the ability to make more regulations governing the fiscal capacity of the three territories. Instead of moving toward the Conservatives' promise of improving and devolving northern governance, which is the fourth pillar of the Prime Minister's much-promoted northern strategy, these amendments would actually increase the amount of control Ottawa would exercise over the three territories. There is no provision to ensure that the three territorial governments would have any input or that there would be any measure of consultation or approval over the nature of these regulations or any changes made to them by future federal cabinets. This is hardly responsible government for the territories.All of us who use the Westminster system of democracy know the key to responsible government is having control over fiscal matters. These amendments completely make a mockery of any statements from the Conservatives that they believe in consulting with and building a better north.In the past Parliament, I tried to lessen the intrusiveness of the federal government over the people of the north. Over and over, I spoke to northern leaders and my constituents and then presented a bill that would give more certainty and control in the Northwest Territories over their fiscal capacity. It was to be achieved through actual legislation.Speaking to my bill at committee, Mr. Chris Forbes, the assistant deputy minister, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance, described how the borrowing limit provisions were a holdover from when the only institution the territories could borrow from was the Government of Canada. Since 1983, the territories have been able to borrow on the open market. Colonial at the start and colonial it continues under the Conservatives.My bill was well supported across the Northwest Territories. If the Conservatives had consulted with the people in the north, they would have heard that what northerners wanted was this federal control over borrowing removed. So far we have not been any consultations on these amendments, unless they have been done in secret. They exclude Canadians because they do not care what Canadians have to say about many of these aspects.The Prime Minister has made a point of stressing the growth of governance in the territories. If that is what he wants, then the Conservatives should have done the right thing in amending these three acts, and that is to take the federal government and the federal Department of Finance completely out of the process. Where are the members for Yukon and Nunavut on these changes? Do they support increased control over the territories by Ottawa? Is it okay with them that the legislative assemblies of the territories lose autonomy with these changes? Why the silence?The people of the north have proven they can govern themselves. They have proven they are capable managers of money. Moody's Investment Services has given the Northwest Territories an Aa1 rating. This rating is second highest and places the NWT in line for credit risk with most of the provinces. Moody's rating takes into account recent developments related to the Deh Cho Bridge project. The credit opinion notes that Moody's:—had already included the Deh Cho Bridge liability in our calculations of the NWT's net direct and indirect debt, reflecting the government's debt-like obligation to make periodic availability payments. As such, formal assumption of the related debt is not expected to alter the NWT's credit profile in a material way. According to Moody's, the rating reflects:—prudent fiscal policies that have, over the past several years, limited debt accumulation. A well-developed fiscal framework (including a Fiscal Responsibility Policy which guides the NWT's fiscal policies and use of debt) should help to ensure that the debt burden remains low and affordable.The NWT's fiscal responsibility policy mandates how the NWT may borrow. The policy guides the GNWT fiscal policy and use of debt and includes guidelines respecting the types of activities for which debt can be issued, as well as limits on total debt and debt servicing costs to ensure affordability. A borrowing plan is required to detail options and preferred choices for funding the short-term and long-term borrowing requirements of the government at minimum cost.(1305)Our territory is responsible. It is acting in a manner which many other provinces should emulate. However, these amendments do not treat the territories as responsible. Instead, they treat them in a paternalistic, uncaring fashion, without any concern what northerners think about changing their constitutions.The people of the north have the same political rights as Canadians who live in the provinces. History has given us a designation as territories rather than provinces, but regardless what we are called, changes to our laws in Parliament should make northerners more equal to other Canadians instead of less.All three territories are anticipated to be the great growth area of our great country. Northerners say “Respect us, treat us as equals, don't make us come cap in hand to Ottawa to be treated in a manner that other Canadians take for granted”. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians a right to a legislative assembly. It guarantees all Canadians that rights are held equally and that Canadians are treated equally by laws. These amendments do not move our legislative assemblies closer to equality with the provincial legislatures. These amendments actually move the northern legislatures further from equality.Through a long and arduous process and negotiations on this issue over three years, my government was never told that the Minister of Finance would create these new powers for the federal cabinet.Is the Conservative government so insensitive that it thinks it can now operate by decree? A process that started as government-to-government negotiations has ended up as laws from master to vassal. Shame on this process that is blind to the desire of all northerners for equality, for respect and for their own political rights in our great country.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsGovernment billsNorthern CanadaNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingLibbyDaviesVancouver EastKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSECOND READINGInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is an issue in which the three northern territories are treated in an equal fashion to the provinces in Canada. We have the same concerns as all the provinces do. After 2015, if we see reductions in the increases in health care transfers, with ever-aging populations, ever-increasing costs of doing business in the north, which is incredibly expensive, with the cost of energy climbing upward, we simply will be unable to afford the systems we need to protect the people who live in these territories.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBrianJeanFort McMurray—Athabasca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSECOND READINGInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who resides in the riding next to mine in Alberta, is represented in the legislative assembly in Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, which has rights and privileges that we in the Northwest Territories can only hope to have for the future. When he refers to my riding, he is actually referring to the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories, a separate political entity in this country, one that has to move forward and one that will be part of the economic development of this great land through mining, oil and gas, and all measure of natural resource development.The people in the jurisdiction I represent want control over what happens, just as the member has that same control in Alberta in his legislative assembly. We want what and expect the same things that other Canadians have. We do not expect to see the little that we have already denigrated by this legislation and this Parliament.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresGovernment billsMining industryNorthwest TerritoriesOil and gasSecond readingTerritorial governmentBrianJeanFort McMurray—AthabascaBrianJeanFort McMurray—Athabasca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtecting Canada's Seniors ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, this has been identified as one of the major concerns of seniors in my riding in the Northwest Territories. The seniors associations there have stressed many different aspects of and solutions to this.This bill would simply clarify some of the things that already exist in law, to allow extenuating circumstances to be used in sentencing people for particular crimes. However, does this really get at the root of what we are dealing with? On a scale of 10, how would this fit in with respect to productivity on this issue?C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)Elder abuseGovernment billsSecond readingSentencingLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersClimate Change in Canada's ArcticInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, this week I was one of 3,000 at the International Polar Year conference in Montreal. I joined many elected representatives from other northern countries. Northern Canadians attended the conference in great numbers. Northerners are concerned about how their environment is being impacted by climate change and want to hear the latest scientific findings. Loss of sea ice, melting permafrost and southern species replacing northern ones are just some of the negative impacts climate change has wrought on the north already.The government chooses to deny the reality of climate change. Canadian environmental policy is being drafted to suit the needs of foreign-backed resource exploitation. Canada's position on climate change places it completely out of step with the rest of the world, for which it is being criticized right now. Recently Norway's former prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, said Canada has been moving backward on this issue and that Canada's position on climate change is anti-scientific and naive. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says the north is fundamental to our identity. It is too bad that the government's denial of climate change is destroying that fundamental identity.Climate change and global warmingNorthern CanadaStatements by MembersShellyGloverSaint BonifaceBlaineCalkinsWetaskiwin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, funding for the aboriginal justice strategy reached its sunset date on March 31. The Minister of Justice has not said a word yet about new funding for this program. Crime prevention, youth gang strategies and restorative justice programs are at risk in over 600 communities across the country. Organizations are already laying off staff.Why the silence from the minister on this important program?Aboriginal Justice StrategyAboriginal peoplesCrime preventionOral questionsRestorative justiceMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-NorthRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAboriginal AffairsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal justice strategy was an investment in crime prevention that was working. The Department of Justice's own study showed in communities with these programs, repeat crime was reduced by half. I do not know of any other investment that could show such a return. The minister himself praised this program at committee last month and told MPs to wait for the budget and see what would happen. We have waited, and there is nothing.When will the minister support real crime prevention that we desperately need in our communities?Aboriginal Justice StrategyAboriginal peoplesCrime preventionOral questionsRestorative justiceRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—DieppeRobertGoguenMoncton—Riverview—Dieppe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAnimal WelfareInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from a number of Canadians who state that as the undersigned citizens, they draw the attention of the House to the following: that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals, that horses are not raised primarily as food-producing animals, that horses are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used at any time in all other food-producing animals destined for the human food supply and that Canadian horsemeat products currently being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain prohibited substances. Therefore, the petitions call on the House of Commons to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-322, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption.C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption)ExportsFood safetyHorsesImportsMeatPetition 411-0899KellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—BiggarElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersProtecting Canada's Seniors Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I had an interesting incident in my constituency office a number of months ago. A senior talked to me about a problem he had with his son taking advantage of him with his low-cost housing. He was afraid that he would end up in trouble with the housing authority. I told him to simply ask his son to leave, but he said that his granddaughter was there as well. When we talk about elder abuse and raising the bar on penalties, in many cases they would be inflicted on the relatives of the elder and those most closely connected. I think we have to be very careful with this. I would like my colleague to comment. Are we going to find that in some cases elders do not report abuse because they are worried about the kinds of penalties that would come down on those who are closest to them who may be engaged in the abuse? If the penalty is too high, would elders be inclined not to bring that forward? It is a very important question because it will play out over and over again in our society.C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)DenunciationElder abuseFamilies and childrenGovernment billsSecond readingSentencingAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-FortinAlainGiguèreMarc-Aurèle-Fortin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1420)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand for even the shortest time to offer my congratulations to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul in moving the bill forward.I followed the progress of the bill through three parliaments, and it is a great thing when a private member's bill moves toward completion. I think we all revel in it, especially when the bill is such that it attracts support from the entire House. Standing as Canadians together, we support these endeavours by individual members of Parliament.Before I came to Parliament, there was a bill that caught my attention. It came from a Conservative MP as well. It was to remove the substance from cigarettes that kept them lit when they were not smoked. That took 20 years to get through the House of Commons. Lives were saved when that bill went through and that substance was taken out of the cigarettes so they did not fall out of someone's fingers and set something on fire or create second-hand smoke in the ashtray.The value that private members can bring to the House is so important and it sometimes puts attention on small, definitive but extremely important issues that can change our society. To that endeavour, as MPs we should all salute this initiative.Having said that, I will speak to the bill before my time runs out. The bill, as far as it goes, would work to deal with this issue. In some ways society has to have a greater recognition of the nature of human trafficking. The latest example of human trafficking in Canada was on April 3. The head of the Domotor crime group, which the RCMP claims is Canada's largest human trafficking ring, was using males in the construction industry as slaves in Hamilton, a large city with labour unions, with inspectors, a city administration with better business bureaus and all those things, and our society could not recognize what was happening. Could it recognize that perhaps this was going on?We have picked off the head of this organization, but we have not changed society. It is important that we understand the people who are working for us, that we understand what is going on in our society around us and that we understand what our communities are representing. To me, that spoke volumes about the nature of our society and how we would have to move from exploitation, as we have tried at all times to do, and understand laws that would remove the opportunities for exploitation and identify for Canadians the nature of exploitation.Certainly, if the example of this person in Hamilton does not get attention in the construction industry right across the country, there is something wrong.It is a time for reflection. When the bill passes, when we move forward in this regard, we need to recognize that society is still the answer to most of these issues.C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)Canadians in foreign countriesChild sexual abuse and exploitationHuman traffickingLawsuitsPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionDeniseSavoieVictoriaJoySmithKildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCitizen's Arrest and Self-defence ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the discussion about firearms. When we think of firearms in our country, we think about a criminal act of not storing them safely. Business owners will not be in a position to have loaded firearms available if someone comes in to take over the store because they have to store their firearms in a separate place from the ammunition. Safe storage is under the Criminal Code.The other point I want to bring up is with regard to the police. For instance, police officers will say that the most likely gun they will be injured or killed by are their own guns. In fact, their bulletproof vests were designed to repel a slug from their issued firearms. When we talk about increasing the supply of firearms in our country, would the member not agree that it will take a lot of examination to see whether this bill fits in all of that?C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)Citizen's arrestFirearmsGovernment billsProperty crimeThird reading and adoptionMikeSullivanYork South—WestonMikeSullivanYork South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I note with some interest my colleague's discussion about the lack of any support for renewable energy within the budget and within the whole ideology of the Conservative Party.Interestingly enough, in the United States over the past two years, ending December 31, 2011, renewable energy sources grew by 27%. At the same time, domestic energy production only increased by 6.7%. We see a great movement to renewable energy in the United States. We see nothing in the budget to improve production and distribution of renewable energy in our country.What is wrong with the government? Why can it not see the writing on the wall for energy in our country?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Budget debatesRenewable energy and fuelWays and Means No. 7PeggyNashParkdale—High ParkPeggyNashParkdale—High Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial statement of Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, when we discuss the energy industry in Alberta and we discuss what is happening there right now, we should go back to 2007 when the industry itself was proposing to increase the upgrading in Alberta to three million barrels a day. That was the projection. What did the Prime Minister say in the 2008 election? He said that he would stop the export of raw bitumen out of this country.We have a Conservative government in Alberta and a Conservative government in Ottawa. They had the right path to take three years ago. What happened to those guys? Why did they abandon good jobs for Canadians and the opportunity to upgrade the industry? What kind of managers of the system are those people turning out to be?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Budget debatesCrude bitumenExportsUpgrading facilitiesWays and Means No. 7LindaDuncanEdmonton—StrathconaLindaDuncanEdmonton—Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, the budget pulls the plug on the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. That is a body set up to provide crucial advice to government about addressing climate change while growing our economy.However, there is no room for science or a balanced approach with the government. It has muzzled scientists, stifled civil society and has now killed its climate change advisory body.Does the government even believe in climate change? Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on our grandchildren's future?Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Budget cutsClimate change and global warmingNational Round Table on the Environment and the EconomyOral questionsPeterKentHon.ThornhillPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, there are two ways it could go and quite clearly, this is a race to the bottom. When we enter into a trade deal with a country even though we recognize it has certain characteristics, we are saying that it is okay. What are we saying to our own people? We are saying that it is okay to seek out tax havens, to launder money, to do all those things. What we are seeing here is a race to the bottom. Is that not the case?Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaFree tradeGovernment billsMoney launderingPanamaSecond readingTax havensJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is on the right track when he talks about the state of Canadian home debt. He could have mentioned as well that our housing market is in a bubble. The price of housing has escalated to a point where, if the interest rate moves up over the next couple of years, many young Canadians will be severely impacted by it. We are in a situation now where, with any change in world politics, we can see a huge increase in the price of oil. The price of oil is already at record levels. All these things are pointing to the fact that we are living in a world where we think we have a solid and sustainable economy, but that is simply not the case right now.Financial institutionsGovernment billsRegulationReport stageS-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential mattersSenate billsDeniseSavoieVictoriaPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotion in AmendmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1110)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with some interest. I think financial issues are always important. Nonetheless, it is also very important to have the correct data.As the Conservatives have said over and over again as their mantra, they have created 600,000 jobs since the recession. I know they are pleased about that. However, they have presented that point in a context that is not correct. They do not talk about the expanding nature of the workforce. If they had mentioned that fact they would then have been led to actually talk about the unemployment rate, which is about 2% higher than it was before the recession. Therefore, when they say we have had a full recovery and everything is going so well, that is really not the case. They are using figures in that fashion and hoping that by saying them over and over again as their mantra, everyone else will agree.We do not agree. We think that when financial information is presented to the House of Commons, it should be done correctly and adequately so that the people of Canada can understand what is happening in the economy. Does my colleague not agree with that?Financial institutionsGovernment billsJob creationRegulationReport stageS-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential mattersSenate billsDeanAllisonNiagara West—GlanbrookDeanAllisonNiagara West—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's promised Arctic naval base at Nanisivik has been downgraded to a fuel cache and an unheated shed.In 2006, the Prime Minister promised to build a deepwater port at Iqaluit that could be used by the military. This would be vital infrastructure that could help the people of the Arctic reduce their costs and build a prosperous territory. Instead of photo ops and empty rhetoric, the government should have focused on getting the job done for northerners.When is the government going to realize that the best way to protect the Arctic is by helping the people who call it home?Canadian ForcesIqaluitMilitary bases and stationsNanisivikNorthern CanadaOral questionsRegional developmentVicToewsHon.ProvencherJulianFantinoHon.Vaughan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am once again not pleased even to have a second opportunity to debate this particular motion, because the motion has once again shown an authoritarian side on the part of the government towards the labour component in this country.The government has come up with basically two arguments to justify its work stoppage action at this time.First it talked about the economy and the detrimental effects potential work stoppage would have on it. The Minister of Labour herself referred to a figure of $22.4 million per week lost to the Canadian economy if the strike went ahead. This is the figure that the government has presented us with to understand the nature of the effect on the economy.That $22.4 million per week amounts to less than nine one-hundredths of a per cent of the economy of this country. It is really not a very large figure when we consider the economy of our country at $1.3 trillion per year.The labour minister has indicated that this loss to the economy is greater than the loss of the values that we have established in this country for collective bargaining and has made that determination based upon those numbers. I find that to be very misleading with regard its impact on the economy and the need to move ahead with this thing, this bill, this closure, this stoppage of work action by both the company and the union involved with Air Canada.In some ways our aviation industry has been hamstrung by the government over the past number of years. The New Democratic Party, and I myself as transport critic in the last Parliament, have stood in Parliament and talked about the impact that the government is making with its excessive airport rents, which in one year amount to about $257 million to the aviation industry. The air travellers security charge amounts to a $394 million charge against our Canadian companies. Fuel taxes are $40 million. A total of $748 million is levied against the industry.The industry has to compete worldwide and it has to compete with American domestic carriers with airports located near our borders. The industry is under pressure, so of course it is trying to cut back on its labour component.Let us look at the labour component in this as well. According to Transport Canada, air carrier cost breakdowns are as follows: labour is 17% of the costs of aviation transport in Canada; fuel is 32%; airport fees are 10% ; capital costs are 9.6%; purchase services are 5.6%; and other is 24%.What we can see is that in reality, the problems with our aviation industry come back to the costs that it has to bear from the current government and previous governments, which have set up our airports as cash cows. Where does it come back to? It comes back to labour. It comes back to the labour component as a way to reduce its costs. It cannot do it with fuel, as fuel is internationally regulated. Other costs are also not subject to change, so where does the industry look for savings? It looks for it in labour, and our unions stand up.What we have is a situation in which unions are standing up for their employees, government is sitting back collecting huge sums of money off the aviation industry, and the industry is in the middle. That is not a good situation.(1625)What has the federal government done about that? Its response over and over again is, “We do not not care. We are not worried about the aviation industry”. However, when it comes to the unions standing up for their workers, that is a different matter. When it comes to the money that the government collects from the aviation industry, it will just keep on doing exactly that.When we look at the situation that we are facing today, we are looking at a government that is becoming increasingly authoritarian in its behaviour. It now considers applying back to work legislation to be just part of the routine. It considers it just part of the routine to reduce the debate that takes place in the House of Commons. Quite quickly over the last year it has moved more and more toward an authoritarian type of behaviour. It is happy with it. Where it will lead us in the future remains to be seen, but it will not lead us in a direction that is going to be acceptable to Canadians, and we will see that over time.The type of action that has been taken today is anathema to everyone who believes in Canadian values, in collective bargaining, in the rights of workers and the right of democratic discourse in the House of Commons. The bill takes a shot at a lot of us, and yes, we are standing up. We on this side will continue to stand up against those types of actions. The minister has not proven her case. One statistic about how this is impacting the economy is all she provides to us in her speech. That is the analysis that she expects us to buy and live with for this type of legislation.The other interesting subject that was brought up was the impact of the work stoppage at Air Canada on northern and isolated communities. Air Canada is hardly a major influence in the aviation industry in northern Canada. There are a couple of flights to Yellowknife and a couple of flights to Whitehorse. Both of those locations are well serviced by experienced northern airlines that provide regular service to southern destinations and also provide service through the whole of the north of Canada. These are good airlines. They are working hard to provide the service that Air Canada does not provide there and will not provide there. The situation there is that if the strike goes ahead, if the work stoppage were to go ahead, there would be no impact on northern communities; northern communities do not see Air Canada as an essential service, and for the government to even make that suggestion is completely wrong.We are going to go through this exercise here today and tonight and we will end up with more back to work legislation enforced by the government. This is a situation that is intolerable, but is a situation we will have to endure for a while yet. Sooner or later the Canadian population will wake up to what is going on here, and when they do, the government will suffer the consequences.Air CanadaAir transportationBack-to-work legislationGovernment Business No. 10LegislationAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague that this is the situation that faces us.We have all recognized that the Air Canada work stoppage that was projected by the company was probably a ruse based on the company's understanding of what the government was planning to do. It could take some of the heat off the government for its anti-labour position. That is quite clear. It does not take a lot of thought to come to that conclusion. The government is creating a new society for Canadians, one in which workers' rights are severely limited. The ability of corporations to enter into arrangements that better suit them is their primary objective. This is a corporate government. This is a government that sees the corporations as the most important segment of society. That is what it will do over and over again. That is the way it plays this game.Air CanadaAir transportationBack-to-work legislationGovernment Business No. 10LegislationWayneEasterHon.MalpequeBobZimmerPrince George—Peace River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I remember my travels through northern B.C. last year on Central Mountain Air, an excellent carrier that provides service from Edmonton and other locations in Alberta through northern B.C. I would say that in most cases, most of northern Canada is covered by secondary carriers in a good fashion. They are available to people for use in a difficult situation as such.We would certainly not be in the situation of needing to get vaccines and not being able to move around the country because of the lack of service by Air Canada, as suggested by the member for Simcoe—Grey yesterday.The issues around northern aviation are such that any rational look at the industry would see there are alternatives to Air Canada available at all times.Air CanadaAir transportationBack-to-work legislationGovernment Business No. 10LegislationBobZimmerPrince George—Peace RiverPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, the description the hon. member makes about Air Canada can be applied to Yellowknife and Whitehorse. I am sure the people who live in those places will say that the airline provides limited service to major centres. Airlines like First Air, Canadian North, Air North, those that provide service to many small communities throughout the north and which are absolutely essential to the development of northern Canada, find themselves at a disadvantage dealing with their main market area because of the presence of Air Canada and, to a lesser extent, WestJet.Air CanadaAir transportationBack-to-work legislationGovernment Business No. 10LegislationPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-MadeleineRodgerCuznerCape Breton—Canso//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say this is an essential public service and then charge the outrageous security fees and airport rents that it is charging. The U.S. does not do that. The U.S. recognizes that its airports are a public service and provides them at a reasonable rate to the airlines. These airlines are being squeezed by the government and the airlines are squeezing their employees. That is what is happening in this industry. Why does the government not recognize that? We have lobbied for that time and time again over the last number of years. Will the Conservatives listen, rather than being the ineffective shopkeepers they are toward the economy?Air CanadaAir transportationBack-to-work legislationGovernment Business No. 10LegislationRodgerCuznerCape Breton—CansoBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAir Service Operations LegislationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am actually not very pleased to have to stand again and speak to an issue of this nature, dealing with a motion to cut the time we can spend debating the issue of whether we should support the back to work legislation which the Conservatives have sponsored.I listened to the Minister of Labour's speech. She said that there is more at stake than what is at the bargaining table.That statement is very true. What is at stake with the legislation and the particular approach the Conservatives have taken? First, when we talk about process in the House, we have a motion that is dedicated to eliminating any discussion on this issue. That is one thing that is very clear. We have some very significant issues with that. The Conservatives are basing their argument on the principle that this work stoppage, this labour issue, is going to affect the national economy very seriously. We have heard other things from the member for Simcoe--Grey. She said that the work stoppage and disruptions could cost Air Canada $22 million a week. Carried over a year, that figure would be about $1 billion. Out of a $1.5 trillion Canadian economy, it does not appear to be as large a figure. If there was a two or three week labour stoppage, we would be dealing with an impact on the economy of less than $100 million, according to the figures supplied in the speech that was just given.We are dealing with legislation that is ostensibly put forward for one reason only, to stop the labour dispute because it affects the economy, yet the figures that have been given are laughable. I also heard concern about not being able to get vaccinations into northern and remote parts of the country. Anyone who lives in a remote part of our country realizes that Air Canada is not the provider of transportation services there. A strike would have to include First Air, Canadian North, and many other sub-carriers which carry people all over the country. They are not part of Air Canada. The remote regions of our country are not going to be impacted tremendously by this labour dispute. That is just not going to happen.As for the issue of major Canadian transportation across the country, there is another airline that does that very well: WestJet. It does not have executive seats. Maybe that is one thing the Conservative Party is worried about. I walk past many government members on the way back to economy class on Air Canada when I go across the country. I would put that as a very serious consideration.The bill has more at stake than what is at the bargaining table. Since it got its majority, the government has been dedicated to crushing labour. It identifies organized labour as a prime opposition to its continued hold over the country. The government is taking very firm action right at the beginning to make sure it separates what it considers to be its problem from its legitimate place in Canadian society, with legitimate rights of collective bargaining. This is what is going on here. It is another step. Perhaps it is not as dramatic as the postal work stoppage that we had to deal with in June, but it is one which is clearly along the same lines.(1355)Let us talk about what the Conservative government has not done for the aviation industry to help these companies so that they can afford to pay the workers a decent wage. One is that the government views the industry as a cash cow. If we look at what the U.S. government charges its airport facilities for rent versus what the Canadian government does with our airports, we would see a remarkable difference. On the one hand the government says it does not want to get involved in a labour dispute, but on the other hand it collects money from the very airline it is supporting. That has made the airline less competitive in the world. Many Canadians cross the border to get flights from the United States. We see that loss of passenger services. All these things add up to airlines that cannot compete as well. It is not about the cost of wages. Many other factors enter into why our airlines are having trouble today. Is it the number of passengers on the flights? No. Actually the number of passenger seats that are filled is higher than it has been for a long time. In other words, domestic flights are fuller than they have been in a very long time, so the aviation industry is actually healthy when it comes to that.It is not healthy in the extra charges, the security charges. What we have to pay for security in Canada, a country where security is not--Air CanadaAir transportationAirline passengersBack-to-work legislationCollective bargainingEconomic recoveryGovernment Business No. 10Process of debateTime limits on debateKellieLeitchSimcoe—GreyRathikaSitsabaiesanScarborough—Rouge River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAir Service Operations LegislationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between people being quiet and people actually listening. I will leave it at that.When it comes to domestic travel, as I mentioned, the numbers are way up and the aviation industry is healthy in that regard. However, the government has imposed other charges on the industry in the last few years. It upped the security fee. Canadians who fly with our airlines pay three or four times what the Americans pay for security charges. That hurts the industry as well. The government continues to do things which hurt the industry. It sees the industry as a cash cow and that is wrong.Air CanadaAir transportationAirline passengersBack-to-work legislationCollective bargainingEconomic recoveryGovernment Business No. 10Process of debateTime limits on debateBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1155)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories biomass energy strategy has been an unqualified success. In the Northwest Territories, buildings owned by the territorial government and many large commercial buildings have been converted from heating with fuel oil to this source of renewable energy made from waste forest product.The federal government owns many facilities across Canada's north. My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Has the government considered a program that would convert these buildings to renewable energy?Biomass energyGovernment facilitiesNorthwest TerritoriesOral questionsSusanTruppeLondon North CentreJoeOliverHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Pensions]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in the House of Commons from many of my constituents. The petitioners say that the Conservative government has threatened to make changes to the old age security program and that this is a direct attack on the poorest seniors who rely on that money for daily living expenses. On February 2, 2012, the NDP moved an opposition day motion calling on the House to reject the proposal by the Prime Minister to increase the eligibility for old age security while also calling on the government to take the necessary measures to eliminate poverty among seniors. Therefore, the undersigned citizens of Canada call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain funding for the OAS and to make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.Application processGuaranteed Income SupplementOld Age SecurityPetition 411-0624Retirement termsAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSafe Streets and Communities ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for actually taking the time to go through each one of the statutes in the bill and reminding us again how very horrendous some of these penalties would be for people who may or may not fit within his definition of criminality.It has been estimated that up to 300,000 Canadians utilize marijuana for medical purposes. The present marijuana licensing procedures have properly licensed perhaps 5,000 Canadians. In Canada many people are using marijuana for medical purposes, but they are not legally licensed to do so. Those people who are using it to take care of their health issues are either accessing it on the open market, growing plants themselves or finding other ways to supply themselves with a product they have identified as useful for their health issues.Now we have a situation where if people who are taking care of their own health are found in possession of more than five plants, they will be given a mandatory minimum sentence for that. The judge will not have the ability to look at the mitigating circumstances.Would my colleague explain to me how this would serve us well in the future?C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other ActsConsideration of Senate amendmentsCrime and criminalityGovernment billsMandatory sentencingMarijuanaMedical techniques and proceduresSecurityBrentRathgeberEdmonton—St. AlbertBrentRathgeberEdmonton—St. Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFinanceInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise on the issue of finance and trade in our country. It is an issue of great concern to all of us.In the last year, we have faced the proposal for two pipelines that would ship raw bitumen out of this country to the United States and one potentially to China. This raw bitumen represents a piece of the supply chain where the upgrading would occur in another country, which would mean the loss of many jobs. The unions that work in this area estimate that the job loss would be severe. I think the loss to the Canadian economy could be calculated simply by the value of upgrading times the number of barrels sent out of the country per day.What does my colleague think about the kind of energy strategy that we are employing in this country that would leave us as the hewers of very rough wood and leave the profits from our natural resources, our treasure house for our grandchildren, in the hands of other countries? 8510-411-33 Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, "Staying Focussed on Canadian Jobs and Growth"Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 1Economic conditionsEnergy economyExportsJob creationOil and gasPre-budget consultationsStanding Committee on FinancePeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFinancial Literacy Leader ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his discussion on Bill C-28. I have some concerns about the bill, having dealt with the government for six years. Many times the government sets up straw dogs that really do not accomplish much. The government has established a commission to look into complaints for human rights and environmental conditions around Canadian mining companies in other countries. The commission has basically done nothing.In this country, we need a lot of consumer protection and consumer information. Financial information is a very important part of that. It is a very complex field for Canadians to understand how to best use their financial system to their own benefit. We are talking about playing a game against people who have much larger and more elaborate plans. How can we guarantee that what is in this bill will actually deliver anything for Canadians?C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada ActFinancial literacyFinancial Literacy LeaderSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersFinancial Literacy Leader ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I heard the presentation yesterday by the Conservative member for Saint Boniface, who mentioned a number of different things that would be accomplished within the financial literacy leader's role. I understand the nature of what is going ahead and yet, when I read the bill, I see nothing that indicates any surety that these things are going to become part of the financial information and direction that the government provides to corporations that lend money to Canadians or engage in financial transactions with Canadians. How can we agree to this position when the government seems intransigent on the needs of consumers? How can we expect anything good to come out of the bill?C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada ActFinancial literacyFinancial Literacy LeaderSecond readingMikeSullivanYork South—WestonMikeSullivanYork South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to question my colleague who has brought up a number of issues in regard to Bill C-24. I know that those issues are important to all of us in the House. Over the past years that we have been working on this bill, we have proposed many amendments on the subjects the member has concerns about, yet I do not see that the Liberal Party has come through with support for those amendments. Can the member explain his and his party's actions in that regard?Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaCanada-Panama Free Trade AgreementFree tradeGovernment billsPanamaSecond readingWayneEasterHon.MalpequeWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to this particular bill, which now has a new title and a new time in the House of Commons. Through the last Parliament we debated the bill at length because we had incredible concerns about our ability to understand what we were doing with our free trade deals across the world. We understand the difference between free trade and fair trade, but we want to know what the government stands for when it makes these types of arrangements with these countries and what drives it forward.We agree that certain products are going to be easier to move into Panama. That is fine, but do we weaken our integrity in doing so? Do we weaken the direction our country can move in? Do we weaken the state of the world when we make deals that are unsatisfactory? Is that what we accomplish when we reach a free trade deal with Panama, a country dedicated to money laundering and tax evasion? Panama has so many corporations listed there, not because they do any work there but because they take advantage of the very lax practices there. Not only are the practices lax there, but they actually promote tax evasion and money laundering as a basis of industry. Here we are, entering into a relationship with a country that has those principles and values. Does it bring us down to that level? By going along with these types of relationships, does it mean that we then lower the bar as far as our ability to enhance our prosperity is concerned? Is that what we are doing? Are those the trade principles of the Conservative government? That is our question, and I think it is a fair question. I would welcome a debate in the House on trade, generally. We see that the government is engaged in trade discussions with other countries. We are all concerned with what the Prime Minister's visit to China means for our country and our relationships. Before the Prime Minister left for China, I remember his interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC Television, in which he stated unequivocally that our energy policy is made by the free market and that we are an energy exporting country. He was saying that our exports are determined by the free market. That is his point of view. Two weeks later he was off to China, where he set up a deal to move energy, in a certain fashion, to the Chinese. We now see that the government, in its relationship with China, has agreed to terms and conditions regarding the environment and the processing of energy products with China. Those do not strike me as part of the free market, but rather an expression of Canada's need to enter into various relationships with a command economy like China's. Do I appreciate those relationships? No, I do not, because I think the Prime Minister should have come back to Canada and set up a national energy strategy in which we could actually determine the value of the relationships we are establishing in exporting our products to countries like China. When we do export raw bitumen to China, as is proposed for the Gateway pipeline, we will become a supply link in a chain that can only be filled with that product moving to China for upgrading there. That is pretty clear. At the same time, interestingly enough, we have struck a deal to liquefy natural gas in Kitimat. Natural gas will be shipped over to China where it will be used to upgrade the same bitumen.(1230)In reality, we are taking two energy products that we can use in Canada to increase the prosperity of our economy and do so in an environmentally correct fashion, and yet are moving them over to another country. That is our trade policy. That policy has an impact on billions of dollars of trade.How does that fit with a free trade agreement with Panama?That is my point, because we do not have any definition of what the government wants to accomplish with trade. What we have, as the Prime Minister said, is an ideological commitment to a free market. However, that is seriously disengaged from the reality of many of the products we are selling. I believe we are the only energy exporting country in the world that does not have a direct say on those energy exports. Now we have to take it on faith, and by confusion, and have to fill that role anyway. We cannot be honest with ourselves and look at how the world is actually developing. It is not developing in the direction that we thought it would through the 1990s and the last decade when free trade was the mantra. No, in an era of increasing population and declining resources, command economies are taking over. We are starting to see that is the way of the world now. It is in this context that Canada, with its natural resources and riches, which we should be preserving for our grandchildren, is making decisions that are not correct.When we come back to the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, we have to ask where the logic of it is. How does it work? Is it really a free trade agreement or is it a free investment deal? Is this really about Canadian multinational companies that want to take their profits out of Canada and invest them in things like the Panama Canal? Is that what this is really about? Is that the underlying principle that we are dealing with? We do not know because the Conservative government very rarely, if ever, presents principles and directions so that we can understand the purpose behind its actions. When we look at these free trade deals, we have to be able to say to ourselves that, yes, we have followed to principles regarding non-criminal activity in our marketplace. We espouse the need to close down tax loopholes that have starved governments around the world from their rightful share of the riches that are made by corporations. These are things that we espouse, yet at the same time we are quite willing to give them up because some Canadian companies could perhaps invest in the expansion of the Panama Canal, then take those profit and give them to their shareholders around the world.When we talk about free trade deals, we have to take them in the context of what the world is doing. The world is changing quickly in this new era, in which command economies will play a larger and larger role. We understand that and have addressed it. Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaCanada-Panama Free Trade AgreementChinaEconomic policyEnergy and fuelExportsFree tradeGovernment billsMoney launderingPanamaSecond readingTar sandsTax evasionTax havensWayneEasterHon.MalpequeGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a strange question, but I will try to answer it the best way I can because I appreciate my colleague's concern about the Northwest Territories. In the Northwest Territories right now, our people have all agreed to build the natural gas pipeline. That pipeline would supply the oil sands with needed natural gas to perhaps upgrade bitumen to a synthetic oil. By aiming to put a million barrels a day across the border with the Keystone pipeline and 800,000 barrels a day out the door from Kitimat in northern B.C., we are basically saying to the Northwest Territories that we do not want to develop its natural gas now because we are going to send this product, unprocessed, to other countries where they can develop their natural gas supplies. In fact, we are going to take the natural gas from northern B.C. and liquefy it at a cost of about 35% of that energy and we are going to send it to China where the processing can be done. Where does that leave the Northwest Territories in this whole equation?Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaCanada-Panama Free Trade AgreementExportsFree tradeGovernment billsNatural gasNorthwest TerritoriesPanamaSecond readingGregRickfordKenoraJasbirSandhuSurrey North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a very good point that my colleague makes. What happens to money laundered in Panama when there are many corporations that have registered in Panama to take advantage of a situation where money can be cheap? When money has to be laundered, there is an opportunity for other companies to pick it up. The more relationships we set up with Panama, the more we legitimize the work that is going on between our corporations in Panama and Canadians. The more we say that the free flow of money between Canada and Panama is going to be unhindered, the more we are saying we support this process. That is the reality of it and it really does not matter what the Conservatives say: reality is reality.Agreements and contractsC-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of PanamaCanada-Panama Free Trade AgreementFree tradeGovernment billsMoney launderingPanamaSecond readingJasbirSandhuSurrey NorthPatMartinWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPrivilege [Members' Access to Parliamentary Precinct]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would report on an incident that happened last fall when there were protesters on the Hill against the Keystone pipeline. The Hill was double-fenced and the stairs were closed off. I approached the RCMP officers who were doing due diligence there and asked if I could stand on the stairs. The RCMP told me I was not allowed to do that. A discussion incurred. An RCMP officer went away and came back with a book on procedure. After reading the procedure with me, he granted me access to that space. Quite clearly, no parliamentarian can be denied access to the Hill for any particular reason. I would say that an issue that is brewing is the unrelenting increase in security which is hampering our privilege on the Hill. I would like to see the Speaker deal with this question of privilege in good fashion and come back to us with a report on the nature of security vis-à-vis the privilege of parliamentarians.Parliamentary precinctParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedSecuritySecurity passesGaryGoodyearHon.CambridgeGordonO'ConnorHon.Carleton—Mississippi Mills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFriendship CentresInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions from my constituents in Western Arctic, Northwest Territories.In the first petition, the petitioners want to draw the attention of the House that members of the 41st Parliament of Canada recognize the vital role friendship centres and provincial territorial associations play in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across Canada. Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to continue to support provincial–territorial associations and friendship centres by ensuring their core funding is increased and remains in place.These vital functions that the friendship centres supply to Canadians across the country are a treasure to many of our communities. I join with my constituents in putting that petition forward.Government assistanceNative friendship centresPetition 411-0547ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsDennisBevingtonNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHousingInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns housing.The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Canada lacks a national housing strategy and that housing is a human right, and therefore call upon Parliament to address a growing housing crisis by working with provincial, municipal and first nations governments to create a national housing strategy.Right across this country, housing is of great concern to Canadians. I join with these petitioners in presenting this petition to the House.National Housing StrategyPetition 411-0548Social housingDennisBevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, we found out today that the government will be shutting down the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, PEARL, on Ellesmere Island. After significant investment into this world-renowned atmospheric research station in the high Arctic, the Conservatives are slashing funding. Instead, they plan to open another one five years from now and in the wrong location. This is another example of the Conservatives' approach to science.Why does the government make decisions based on the whims of a Prime Minister, instead of listening to great Canadian scientists and their globally important research? When will the Conservatives get their heads out of the sand when it comes to the global climate crisis?Government assistanceOral questionsPolar Environment Atmospheric Research LaboratoryDianeFinleyHon.Haldimand—NorfolkPeterKentHon.Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-19, an act to eliminate the long gun registry in Canada. Under Canadian federal law, the registry will cease to exist potentially after this week, that is, after the Senate has had its chance to deal with it, but it is pretty clear now that the Senate will deal with it in a very prompt fashion.I represent a riding where firearms are very important, where firearms for many people represent a necessity for subsistence living, where firearms represent a cultural way of life, where firearms are used extensively and 99.9% of the time for the correct purposes, when hunting, trapping and carrying on an outdoor lifestyle.When the gun registry was introduced years ago, there was very strong opposition to it, but there was strong opposition as well to the licensing provisions, to the educational provisions and to the safe storage provisions. There was a general feeling that gun owners, people who use their guns for legitimate purposes, were being hard done by. I agreed with that. I agreed with the Fort McPherson elder who told me he did not want to become a criminal because he was continuing to do what he had done before. I agreed with that. We should not make criminals in Canada out of respectable citizens. We should do everything we can to avoid giving criminal records to Canadians for issues that are not that important, for issues that may be bureaucratic. For example, people may simply be unable to register a gun, unable to store it properly, all the different issues that surround the use of any kind of implement.I was always in favour of getting the criminal charges out of the long gun registry. However, even in 2000 I said there is a value to any registry, whether we register dogs or cars or some other possession. Whatever we register has a value to the person registering it. That person has security in that his or her possession is filed in an appropriate fashion with an authority that can direct attention to that particular instrument, whether it be a car, a dog or a gun, whether it has been mislaid, has been stolen, or has been used by someone else in an inappropriate fashion. A registry is a useful tool for those people who want security with their possessions.Over the last four months since my constituents have heard the argument about the data, the gun owners are starting to wake up to the fact that there is a reason they want their guns registered. There is a reason that a law-abiding citizen would like to know that his gun is identified in a legal registry, so that if it is stolen, if it is misplaced, if it is mishandled by someone else, that gun will not be put under his name, and that gun will be recognized for what it is. If that gun is sold to someone else, the legal gun owner has a way of tracking that record. People are coming to me with that issue.I asked the government in June what it would do with the data. When the Conservatives proposed to take long guns out of the criminal registry, which is exactly what the government is doing, I asked what the government would do with the data it has collected which people have invested in giving to the government? That is what people do when they register their implements. They invest their time, their effort and their thoughts in putting it into a registry. What will the government provide for those people who want a registry?(1340) Perhaps it will fall into the hands of the provinces, territories, municipalities, whatever government agency decides to provide a registry for guns. That makes sense. We have a great example of that. Quebec has said it wants to provide a registry and under the law there would be no criminality with a registry. There cannot be. The Criminal Code is driven by the federal government, this Parliament, not the Quebec legislature. When the Quebec government establishes a registry in which its citizens can partake, it will have the opportunity to do what it wants with it. That is the way of this land. That is the way the law works. That is the way we take care of things in this land. Cars are registered with the provinces. Dogs are registered with municipalities. We have a process of registration at the provincial and territorial level. Since 2000 I have been an advocate of a provincial registry because there are more purposes to a registry than establishing criminality. There are many more purposes to a registry than that.Safe storage is still covered under the existing Criminal Code. It will still be a criminal offence if people do not store their guns safely. However, I am having trouble establishing what is considered ownership within the existing Criminal Code once the registry is removed. How do we determine what ownership is when we have removed the legal registry of guns? How do we determine which gun belongs to which person, and which person did not store the gun properly and should have a criminal record? If someone says that it is not his or her gun, will we say that because the gun is in that person's home, then that person must own the gun? Is that the way it is going to be? Did the Conservative government do any work on this legislation?When the Conservatives started talking about the data, it was ministers of the government who said the information could not be shared because it would be against the Privacy Act. Does it go against the Privacy Act? Is that what the Privacy Commissioner said? The Privacy Commissioner said no and all of a sudden the government changed its tune and said now that it is ineffective, inefficient, does not work, is not correct and was not made up right. That is the direction the government took.The government does not do legislation very well when it does not have the answers to start with. It is terrible in creating legislation. The government is not fit to legislate and that is the case with this bill. It has not looked at the issues. There is no document that shows how the Criminal Code will interact with other elements when the registry is removed. I ask government members to show me a document or any information that has been shared with members of Parliament on that issue.I supported the bill introduced by the member for Portage—Lisgar. It was a blunt instrument but it was what my constituents wanted and it was not in the shape that this bill is in. This bill is a mess. The government has not done a good job with it. It is reacting. It is not doing it correctly. It has left out many important elements, which we have pointed out by way of many amendments and the government has chosen not to listen. This is a government that does not listen. It does not want to do things right. It does not want to do its homework. It is a government that acts emotionally and without regard for the due process of legislation. The government is not getting any more approbation from me on its legislation.Burglary and theftC-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActCriminalizationDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsProvincial and territorial governmentsReport stageRestricted firearmsSafetyRichardHarrisCariboo—Prince GeorgeRichardHarrisCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was not the subject of my discourse. My discourse spoke to what is going to happen with the data and why the government has done what it has done. Provinces and territories can make up their own minds whether a registry would be effective for them. The government is involved in a federation, a co-operative federation. What we see here is an uncooperative government in a federation and that is a disgrace.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsReport stageRestricted firearmsRichardHarrisCariboo—Prince GeorgeRyanLeefYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, with all humility to my colleague from a neighbouring territory with whom I very much sympathize on many issues, he brought forward the one example that is more about form than substance. I am not interested in the title of a bill. I am interested in the substance of the legislation that would destroy billions of dollars' worth of data which the provinces might want and his territory might want. We put forward an amendment that would give a specific timeframe to the provinces to consider whether they wanted that data. That amendment was not accepted by the Conservative government because it is not interested in substance; it is interested in form. The Conservatives have used this issue of the gun registry for many years to raise funds, to harangue other MPs. That is what the Conservatives do. Is that legislation? Is that attention to detail for Canadians? No. That is the problem we have here in this House.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsReport stageRestricted firearmsRyanLeefYukonJasbirSandhuSurrey North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, my position has always been that the registration of firearms should not be a criminal matter. That is correct. The police need tools. Gun owners need tools. A gun owner who loses his or her rifle and wants to indicate that he or she is not responsible for that rifle anymore can go to a registry and say that a rifle with a certain serial number has been stolen and is no longer in his or her possession. Without a registry, what can gun owners do? They are stuck with it.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsReport stageRestricted firearmsJasbirSandhuSurrey NorthMikeAllenTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the federal government, the western provinces, Yukon and the Northwest Territories signed the Mackenzie River Basin Master Agreement. Out of this master agreement a number of bilateral agreements were to be completed, governing the quantity and quality of water moving along the Mackenzie River Basin. Fifteen years later, there are still no agreements. In Alberta and the Northwest Territories, the lack of a bilateral agreement has meant that the rapid expansion of the oil sands is taking place without proper controls protecting these waters. This lack of control is of great concern to all northerners, particularly aboriginal people, many of whom live along the Mackenzie River. Alberta and the federal government want to approve more capacity building by quickly approving the gateway pipeline. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources want to simplify the environmental process to allow new developments clear sailing through these waters. However, they should assure the people of the north that basic agreements will be in place before the expansion of the oil sands.Environmental protectionMackenzie RiverStatements by MembersTar sandsWater resourcesDanAlbasOkanagan—CoquihallaRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Marquette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodSearch and RescueInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, another example of the Conservatives' penny-wise and pound foolish management has come to light. Despite just having signed a long-term lease, the government has decided to shut down the Coast Guard office in Inuvik, the office for the Beaufort Sea and the western Arctic Ocean. The Coast Guard workers have to move to Iqaluit on the other side of the country or lose their jobs. This means increased costs for relocation, as well as the disruption of the lives of these workers.How can the government say that it is a good financial manager when it makes decisions like this?Canadian Coast GuardClosure of government operations and facilitiesCoast guard servicesInuvikOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—NepeanKeithAshfieldHon.Fredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodSearch and RescueInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, this poor management will mean that mariners in the western Arctic will have to rely on the Coast Guard office in Iqaluit, nearly 3,000 kilometres and three time zones away. This is at a time when marine traffic is expected to increase in the Beaufort Sea and on the Mackenzie River. Despite having signed a long-term lease and the increased costs of relocating staff, the government is blundering ahead with a move that puts mariners at risk.Is this the government's plan for Arctic sovereignty--to reduce service for northerners to help a single budget line?Canadian Coast GuardClosure of government operations and facilitiesCoast guard servicesInuvikOral questionsPublic Service and public servantsKeithAshfieldHon.FrederictonKeithAshfieldHon.Fredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week I was in South Africa representing Canada's north at two international climate change conferences. At the first conference, organized by GLOBE International, I learned first-hand just how appalled the rest of the world is with Canada's position on climate change. At that conference, one after another, representatives from other countries rose to attack Canada. The worst came from the former deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom, who likened Canada's attempt to sabotage international co-operation on climate change as a conspiracy against the poor.When I got to Durban for the UN conference, I learned why Canada was held in such low esteem. Other than to disrupt any agreement, this country was missing in action. Anyone other than the minister and his spin doctors was unwelcome in the Canadian delegation. No scientists or opposition MPs were allowed.It is unfortunate that the government's blind pro-big-business ideology and lack of willingness to face the facts about the environment and climate change have so damaged our international reputation.Climate change and global warmingGovernment policyInternational relationsStatements by MembersRobAndersCalgary WestMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton Hills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodLocal NewspapersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, listening to this minister makes me believe we need to live in a big city to have a right to read a local paper.Changes made to the program broke a help system that was working a lot better. Postal subsidy efficiently reduced costs for those papers. The money available to them now does not cover postal fees and simply is not enough.These newspapers play a key role in the life of rural communities. Why is the government cutting help to local papers? Community newspapersGovernment assistanceOral questionsPostal ratesJamesMooreHon.Port Moody—Westwood—Port CoquitlamJamesMooreHon.Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersImproving Trade Within Canada ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have a chance to stand up and speak after such a great discussion by my colleague. I am pleased to do so.We are all in favour of improving trade within Canada, but sometimes it does not work that way in the more remote regions of the country where, in order to provide services to people, we have to give businesses opportunities to compete. In many cases in communities across the far north there is a business incentive program. An incentive is provided to a business that locates in a community and pays the high cost of putting up an office building or a facility in a community where the costs are so much higher than anywhere else. Then that business is expected to compete with southern businesses that act like carpetbaggers. They come up and skim off all the good business. To avoid that issue in the Northwest Territories we have always had a business incentive policy that encourages businesses to actually provide services to the people of the region in their own communities.How does the member see that this particular internal trade bill would work for the people of the Northwest Territories, the people whom I represent and want to see have the same opportunities as others across this big country?Agreement on Internal TradeC-14, An Act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings ActFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsInterprovincial tradePenaltiesSecond readingGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMarketing Freedom for Grain Farmers [Report Stage]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech on this very difficult subject.The minister of state did talk a lot about the transportation system. Working on the transportation committee in the past and talking with the various producers in western Canada, it became clear that size matters with the railways, that the opportunities to move grain, or other agricultural products, effectively and efficiently in western Canada are linked directly to volume. The opportunities for small producers have turned out to be not so goodThe minister of state talked about all the wonderful things that the government is going to try to do to improve the rail service agreements. How can she guarantee success in this regard for those small farmers who are going to be on their own?C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain ActsCanadian Wheat BoardFarming and farmersGovernment billsGrain and grain growingMarketingMonopoliesReport stageDeniseSavoieVictoriaLynneYelichHon.Blackstrap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Comptroller General found that 21 out of 47 contracts awarded by CanNor were sole-sourced and that 17 of the 21 were awarded without justification. The Comptroller General also found evidence of contract splitting to avoid competition.The questions are clear. How much was spent when CanNor broke the rules? Who received the money? Who is going to take responsibility for this mishandling?Audits and auditorsCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyGovernment accountabilityGovernment contractsOral questionsTedMenziesHon.MacleodLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsAirline SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1845)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak again on the issue of aviation safety.On October 18, I asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities why we had not seen the government follow up on its commitment to bring on line a full complement of operational inspectors for our aviation industry.The minister said that I was attacking the integrity of the Transport Canada workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was attacking the integrity of the bureaucracy in the government, which in May 2010 promised us, at the transport committee, that it would go through the process of hiring some 98 Transport Canada aviation operational inspectors who were missing at that time.The sad state is it is worse. There are fewer aviation inspectors now than there were in May 2010. We have actually stepped backward a bit from that point.I certainly did not attack the integrity of the inspectors, who are working flat out without a full staff. However, the government, which promised to do this and knew these problems were developing in aviation safety for small carriers across the country, in November 2009, when it delayed the implementation of SMS for small carriers, admitted we had a problem in safety in Canada among small carriers.The crashes that have occurred across northern Canada in the past 12 months all appear to be operational in nature and appear to be the kinds of crashes that are associated with the operation of an aircraft, not mechanical in nature. It certainly sheds some light on what is happening inside our aviation system.I was transport critic for this party in the last term. The transport critic before me put the same effort into aviation safety. We understand the importance of it to Canada and to the people who have to fly in small planes in conditions that are fast-changing across northern Canada, where climate change has made the weather systems very uncertain.The situation now is we have 595 positions in aviation safety across the country and only 382 are filled. This is especially noted in the Prairies and northern regions and in the Atlantic regions. These are issues that affect people flying.What has caused this issue? The issue has been exacerbated by the government, first, pushing the small carriers into SMS. Then when the government removed them from the SMS system, it did not really put back in the system of oversight that was used prior to that.Now we have a situation where small carriers are not bound by SMS, yet they do not have the oversight, the on-the-ground inspections that small aircraft carriers across the country relied on to keep their safety standards to a high extent, and this is a bad situation. The simple message for the government is to hire the inspectors, put the system back in order and give the Transport Canada workers the manpower they need to do the job for Canadians across the country.Adjournment ProceedingsAir safetyAviation safety inspectorsDepartment of TransportKellieLeitchSimcoe—GreyPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsAirline SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, certainly we can talk about Canada's aviation safety record. We can talk about SMS as being leading edge, but in reality, there is no other country that would institute SMS without proper oversight. This is the question that we have for the government. Why has this not happened?The Conservatives agreed in 2010 that they would replace and fully complement our operations inspectors across this country, but they have not done that. When it comes to the situation right now in terms of the safety of the travelling public, we can divide it into two groups. Statistically, if we take Canadian aviation as a whole, large carriers that have the internal ability to provide good safety systems are generally safe, but with respect to small carriers, the government agreed in 2009 to back off from SMS with small carriers, and that is where we need the oversight. I wish the government would go ahead with this in a good fashion.Adjournment ProceedingsAir safetyAviation safety inspectorsDepartment of TransportPierrePoilievreNepean—CarletonPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAviation SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' reckless hands-off approach to aviation safety is putting Canadians at risk. Crashes in the north have cast a light on the problems with safety inspections. In my region, prairies and north, we are supposed to have 106 operational inspectors, but we only have 74. In other regions, over one-third of the inspectors are missing, yet we allow airlines to regulate themselves with no hands-on federal oversight.Will the Conservatives take the safety of Canadian families seriously and hire the safety inspectors we need for Canada's aviation industry?Air safetyAirlinesAviation safety inspectorsOral questionsRegulationSelf-policingStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—AssiniboiaStevenFletcherHon.Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFirearms RegistryInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Privacy Commissioner repudiated Conservative claims about gun registry data. She confirmed records could be shared with the provinces. Once again out-of-touch Conservative talking points failed to hold up under scrutiny. The Privacy Commissioner says all it takes is an agreement between the government and the provinces.Will the government agree to drop the ideology and negotiate with those provinces that want to use the records to protect their citizens?C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActData sharingFirearms registryOral questionsAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleVicToewsHon.Provencher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodPovertyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government has to stop hiding in gopher holes. Food bank use is up 80% since 2008 in our northern communities, and that does not even tell the whole story. Families in many of our remote communities do not even have access to food banks. We are entering another cold winter. Why is the government allowing northern families to be left behind? When will it create an anti-poverty strategy that helps northerners who cannot afford to feed their families?Food banksGovernment assistanceNorthern CanadaOral questionsPovertyRemote communitiesShellyGloverSaint BonifaceKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnding the Long-gun Registry ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, last year I voted in favour of a private member's bill put forward by the member for Portage—Lisgar that would have done away with the long gun registry. That bill was a blunt instrument; however, it restricted itself to eliminating the need to register long guns. Now in front of Parliament we have the government's Bill C-19, which is not only a blunt instrument but a wrong-headed and meanspirited instrument, a bill that would drive a greater wedge between rural and urban Canadians.The Conservatives are supposed to be the Government of Canada, a truly national government that is supposed to govern for all Canadians, not just the less than 40% who voted for it. I have never hidden my position on the long gun registry. My position has always been that the long gun registry does not belong in the federal Criminal Code. Provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments should be the ones to determine how long guns are registered in their various jurisdictions. In 2000 the Supreme Court agreed with that position and said that every government has the right to register firearms. Firearms registration is not something that goes against our laws; it fits with the property laws of the provinces, and it would not be within the Criminal Code if the provinces took it over.Bill C-19 goes against my position because the data would be destroyed without those other governments first being asked if they wished to use the data as the basis for their own registries.The government has foisted upon Parliament a bill that is a slap in the face to Canadians in those parts of the country that favour a long gun registry, like Quebec. Before the federal registry, Quebec even had a plan to put in its own provincial registry.The Conservatives claim they have to destroy the data because of privacy concerns that would make it impossible to transfer the data. I asked the Privacy Commissioner about this aspect. Here is her response:Generally, s. 8(2)(f) of the Act permits the disclosure of personal information “under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province ... for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation.” Therefore, in appropriate circumstances, an information sharing agreement or arrangement put in place for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law (including provincial law) could assist to ensure any transfer of personal information was in conformity with the Privacy Act.For those on the other side, this means that as long as there is an agreement allowing the transfer of the information, there are no Privacy Act concerns.This ill-considered bill would cause farmers, hunters and trappers nothing but headaches and cost all Canadians more money in the end.One of the advantages of a registry is that it provides an accurate means to show lawful transfer of firearms, but confusion will be the order of the day after the passage of Bill C-19. For instance, the Conservatives have not taken the safe storage provisions out of the Criminal Code. They remain, and will likely be more rigidly enforced by the police in the future.Because of this poorly thought out bill, a number of important questions will have to be answered. For example, will someone who lends his or her gun to someone else be responsible for its proper storage? If a person gives a family member a gun and does not record that transaction in a proper fashion, will that individual still be liable for any unfortunate results of unsafe storage? Will the individual end up with a criminal record because he or she will have no simple, legal and effective way to mark this transaction?It is vital to offer something for gun owners to reduce liability in sale, possession, responsibility for safe storage, and transfer of ownership. An effective, simple and reliable non-criminal registry at the local government level is something the vast majority of Canadians can accept and should be entitled to, without having to pay for it all over again; however, because the Conservatives did not think this through, by the time Canadian firearm owners begin dealing with these headaches, the data will have been destroyed.The bill means that gun owners who live in those parts of Canada that want the registry will have to go through the process of re-registering their guns. Reburdening gun owners like that shows exactly how little the Conservatives have thought the bill through. If Bill C-19 passes as presented, provincial, territorial or aboriginal governments that want to establish a registry will have to go back to square one, at great taxpayer expense, and redo the whole thing.(1555)Gun owners in the jurisdiction will be forced to fill out more forms and pay more fees. Police will have to wait years to have a useful tool to work with. One province has already said that it wants to reconstitute a provincial registry, that being Quebec, and more may consider the options too. No one will end up with a criminal record by failing to comply with these provincial or territorial registries.Because of the flaws in the bill and because I support the purpose of getting the bill out of the Criminal Code, I intend to move amendments that would put in place a three-year waiting period before the data could be destroyed. The Conservatives claim the NDP government, if elected in 2015, would want the data preserved to recreate the registry. My amendment would see that the data that was not picked up by the provinces would be destroyed in 2014.As an aside, it is pleasing to hear that even the Conservatives could recognize the potential for the next election.My amendments would require the government to consult with the provinces, territories and aboriginal governments to see if they wanted to recreate their own non-criminal registries.Finally, my amendments would require that the data for those jurisdictions that wanted a registry would be transferred to the respective governments. This amendment would save Canadians hassles and money.What we have in front of us is a government that is full of its own majority. It is full of the direction that it can take without responding to the needs of Canadians. It is a government that wants to do everything its own way.When we talk about a band of lemmings charging over hill, it strikes me that is what is happening with the registry right now.There are important and significant legal issues with the bill. They are issues that take time to debate and understand. We have seen the Conservatives put closure on the debate.I am sure we will see the bill go to committee. I hope at that point in time the Conservatives will listen to reason and will take the time to understand the issues that are presented with the creation of Bill C-19.The effort to remove the long gun registry from the federal Criminal Code is a useful thing to do. What has been layered on top of it is a slap in the face to co-operative federalism, to registered gun owners who wish to have some measure of liability protection as easily as possible and to a lot of Canadians.The government does not have to do this. It does not have to be didactic about this. It should understand that it is making laws that will affect the lives of Canadians and legitimate gun owners and impact the liability of many people. It can make the right choice and support an amendment which would allow the data to be shared with the rest of the country, with the other jurisdictions that have a right to the data, as the Supreme Court said in 2000. The government can do that. It does not have to turn its back on Canadians. It does not have to turn its back on the provinces. It does not have to act with its shirt full. It does not have to act puffed up and proud of what it is doing. It can act civilly for Canadians.If it wants the approbation from other political people in the country, then the government should act civilized, do the right thing and follow the amendments.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActData sharingDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsHuntersLong gunsSafetySecond readingBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinSorensonCrowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnding the Long-gun Registry ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2000, I stood in Parliament the first time. I said at the time, and it is on the public record, that I thought the way to go with the long-gun registry was to put it in the hands of the provinces, the municipalities, those that could deal with it at a level that was appropriate. What I found offensive about the long gun registry was that it was enforced by the federal Criminal Code, so it made criminals out of people it should not have.I am very much in favour of decriminalization of aspects of our law, this being one of them. I am sure if the Conservatives consider many other aspects of our law that could be considered for decriminalization too, they would be on the right track.However, on this one, when you make the decision to destroy the data when you know perfectly well, through the Supreme Court decision in 2000, that the provinces have the right to take over the data and create their own registries, you are making—C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActData sharingDecriminalizationFirearms registryGovernment billsLong gunsSecond readingKevinSorensonCrowfootBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnding the Long-gun Registry ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the debate over the gun registry has been that there has been very little attention paid to the facts on all sides in this debate. I have tried to take a rational, reasonable approach to important legislation. I have followed consistently what I have said over the years, and that is hunting implements should be part of property law. They should be enforced by the provinces, territories and aboriginal governments. They are hunting instruments. They are part of our culture. That would be a more appropriate place to have them registered, like cars, like dogs, as has been pointed out.I am okay with the law coming out, but I am not okay with small-minded thinking that will destroy data that is useful to provinces that want to establish their own registries.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActData sharingDecriminalizationFirearms registryGovernment billsLong gunsSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnding the Long-gun Registry ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under advisement. Any time data and records are destroyed with no purpose other than to sort of cast it off in a way that is emotional rather than rational, then I am against it.C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActData sharingDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsLong gunsSecond readingElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsRayBoughenPalliser//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives make cuts to the University of the Arctic, northerners are wondering what happened to the government's commitment to the north. As Philip, one of many who has emailed me with these concerns, wrote: “How does the Prime Minister's commitment to Arctic sovereignty, issues of sustainable development and expansion of Canadian understanding of, and co-operation with, peoples of the North coincide with his government's slashing of funding for the University of the Arctic?” Where is their commitment to the north? What is their answer to Philip and other northerners?Budget cutsEconomic developmentNorthern CanadaOral questionsUniversity of the ArcticDavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsJohnDuncanHon.Vancouver Island North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Asbestos]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recalling some of the issues around asbestos. I was in the construction industry for many years. At that time, the exposure that the average worker would have to asbestos was really quite unfortunate. No one knew any better. We know better these days.My question, though, is about the Conservatives linking the whole mining industry in Canada with asbestos. Would my colleague not agree that this is actually quite a dangerous strategy on the part of the government? We have an industry that is vilified around the world, and that is the asbestos industry. We have a Canadian mining industry that has huge investments around the world, a Canadian mining industry that for future investments will be judged on its Canadian attitude, Canadian performance, the type of direction that it takes the whole industry. If we tie the mining of asbestos to our major mining industry, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is that not actually a very bad strategy for the future for our own mining industry?Asbestos safetyOpposition motionsJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North DeltaJinny JoginderaSimsNewton—North Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Asbestos]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought that speech around to a discussion on natural resources.He said that the federal government does not interfere with the choice of natural resources, but quite clearly for the last five years the Conservative government has provided funding to an agency that actually promotes the sale of this product in other countries. To somehow suggest that the federal government is removed from the process of selling chrysotile asbestos in other countries is wrong. The federal government is a full-size partner in the sale of these resources to countries where standards are not in any way equal to Canadian working standards.How can my colleague say that the federal government is separated from the provinces on the disposition of chrysotile asbestos?Asbestos safetyChrysotileChrysotile InstituteExportsOpposition motionsGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryGuyLauzonStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Asbestos]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, the history of the Parliament with this issue has been one of movement. We have seen over the last six years that we have gone from where a vote in 2006 against the Chrysotile Institute had 10 supporters in the whole House of Commons, to a point now where I think the vast majority of people in this room recognize that we are not on the right track here. This is not a huge industry.Would my colleague perhaps comment on how we are moving in that direction and that the government should recognize that and should respond in an appropriate fashion, not in the way that it responded quite recently on the international scene by being the odd person out on the whole issue of this?Asbestos safetyOpposition motionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCopyright Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-11, the copyright modernization bill. It is very appropriate that we are debating this bill today. It has a very useful function.This week I had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with a variety of artists in my office, led by members of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a group that works on these very issues. The livelihood of its members depends on the outcome of these issues. Artists across this country can only receive revenue for and in support of their works in certain areas. Although they have certain tools at their disposal, they do not identify the bill as being a significant addition to their tool chest and in many ways do not see it as a solution. Artists liked the idea of the MP3 tax, but the Conservatives did not, so they held it up as a red herring and it was never put in place. That is unfortunate as the MP3 format is now the main means of copying music in this country. If we look at the shifting pattern of copying activity which the CPCC provided in its fact sheet, that is the direction in which the industry and people are going. Unfortunately, the legislation is not working very well. I admit that I have never copied anything from the Internet or any music at all. I always buy music in a medium that comes in a plastic container with the artist's picture on the front and a description of his or her work. I find that to be an acceptable way to obtain music. I have not varied much from that. It might be that I am a bit of a Luddite or perhaps I am a polite person as well. I believe that musicians provide a relief to society. Those young people in our society who engage in music are often not as troubled as those who are not because they have an outlet for their emotions.A young artist speaking to me in my office expressed the fact that he did not want digital locks on everything. Rather, he wanted society to recognize and respect him. He wished for an ordered society that would understand the rationale of the music industry just as drivers driving down a highway understand its rationale. As we are in a collective relationship as we head down that road we must work together to make that a part of our societal function. Primarily, there is a need for education. However, the government uses draconian punishments that are hard to enforce and difficult for musicians to exercise. They would have to take their fans to court and fine them. As unfortunate as it is that someone would illegally copy a young musician's music, he or she could still be a fan. The thought of musicians taking people to court because they copied and listened to their music would not work in our society. That is not a remedy we want. To create a society that respects musicians and their creativity we need to provide some education on that. The thought of detecting recordable sounds and copying them as evidence to be put in front of a court is ridiculous.(1020)We have seen that. We have been in this modern age for quite a while. As a rule is set up, they will take it out.We should not kid ourselves into thinking that, when we put in copyright legislation which puts the onus on the courts and the legal system to enforce these rules, it will work very well. We need to put more effort into our society, into education and into raising the standards of our society so that people understand that supporting artists is a good thing to do. We have done this in very innovative ways in the past.Canadian artists make up 25% of radio broadcasting in Canada. That has been a mainstay of the Canadian music scene since I was a child, and that was quite a while ago. That is why musicians probably gather in $50 million a year from SOCAN. The songwriters, the people who create the music, have that opportunity, which is a good thing. It works and it is in place. The private copying of collective work was being done as well when most of the recordings were done on CDs. When we suggested that taxing the MP3 would help this situation without going to court and without the musicians having the burden of holding on to the rights or the burden put on the courts, we thought that would have been a more acceptable pathway toward what we are trying to accomplish.Digital locks will not work for radio broadcasts. Right off the bat, this would be another way these things would be broken down and where songs can be recorded, even though they might be under digital locks in one fashion but not in another. They would be available to the public without the digital lock. Are we really creating anything of value here? Will this solution work? I have trouble many times in the House with Conservative legislation. The government's legislation, in so many ways, appears to be kind of useless. It does not work for what we want to accomplish. I would ask Conservative legislators to look at the legislation. Is this really what they want to accomplish? Will this really work? What are their goals in putting this forward to us today? Are they going to protect musicians or are they going to put an unnecessary burden on musicians and on the court system trying to interpret and to intervene in these copying issues?I stand with musicians in Canada. They play an enormous and good part in our society. I have supported them throughout my life in my role in municipal government. I have always promoted music festivals. I am always promoting the opportunity for people to expand their musical abilities. It is something that the House wants as well.What is more important is to understand that the law is not what we want to create in Canada. What we want to create in Canada is the atmosphere of trust, confidence and respect among young people, among those who would perhaps take something for free rather than pay for it, because they do not understand that they are damaging people with that act.We need to put our efforts in other directions. This bill does not suffice. It would not create the kind of Canada that we are after. As such, I would love to see more work done on the bill. I know this issue is important and I trust that parliamentarians will come to grips with it.C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright ActCopyright and copyright lawTyroneBenskinJeanne-Le BerPaulCalandraOak Ridges—Markham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCopyright Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to video game producers. My emphasis is on musicians. If the hon. member thinks that is of particular importance, could he explain to me how the bill would protect video game producers? It may well be that this particular part of the bill would help that industry. I would like to understand that better as well, of course. We are here to debate the bill, to understand how we can make the bill better and how these issues can be dealt with in our society.C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright ActCopyright and copyright lawPaulCalandraOak Ridges—MarkhamTyroneBenskinJeanne-Le Ber//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCopyright Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is part of what comes from the Canadian private copying collective. The tax on CDs worked fine while CDs were the main instrument of copying. In some ways, it was a very non-intrusive effort and a good effort toward ensuring that there was some compensation for artists because we do not have a society that respects the rights of artists to hold their works without being copied. We needed to find some way around that and we did it without going to the courts. We did it through a tax system.I still think that underlying this is a huge need to raise the level of respect in our society for artists and creative people. That would do more for the issue and society than penalties, fines and imprisonment through the court system.C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright ActCopyright and copyright lawTyroneBenskinJeanne-Le BerMarc-AndréMorinLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCopyright Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I see this as being another issue where we would create confrontation rather than solutions, which is what I see through this Copyright Act. The confrontation, on the one hand, would come in the form of people finding technological solutions so they would not be covered under this particular law. That is the problem. We do not want people running around trying to find ways to copy so they do not fit under the law. What we want is to have people respect and understand that our society is ordered on certain ways. That takes more time and effort but it is still the direction in which we need to go. Therefore, amending this law without having any idea of how we are moving our society is wrong. It will not work.C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright ActCopyright and copyright lawMarc-AndréMorinLaurentides—LabelleJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to get a clear picture of what is going on at CanNor. First, we have an audit that shows that every financial rule in the book was broken. Then, the minister says that it is just a draft and that she is waiting for the final audit before acting. Then, the Prime Minister chimes in saying that all is fixed and there is nothing to worry about. Then, at the start of this week, the head of policy for the agency contradicted the Prime Minister when he told the natural resources committee that it was waiting for the final audit before acting.Which is it? Has the government fixed the problems or is it still waiting to find out what the problems are?Audits and auditorsCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyCorrective actionFinancial managementOral questionsJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—NepeanLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodNorthern Economic DevelopmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not think that obfuscation and passing the blame will really solve this issue. Here is another problem. According to the agency's head of policy, all decisions are being made by the minister rather than by non-partisan public servants. These are financial decisions. My constituents tell me that the minister's inbox is overflowing with applications waiting for a decision.While the minister dithers, economic development for the north is being delayed. When will the minister take up her responsibilities and get things going there?Audits and auditorsCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyCorrective actionFinancial managementOral questionsPolitical influenceLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsElectoral Boundaries Readjustment ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP)(1200)[English]Bill C-332. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-332, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Western Arctic. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill again, although I really do not understand why, after six years, Parliament has not been able to pull together a consensus to do the work that should be done to honour Canadians with the proper appellation attached to each constituency.My constituency, which lies between Nunavut and Yukon, is called the Western Arctic. The failure of the previous member of Parliament to change the name at the time of division means that my people do not have proper recognition in the House of Commons. This is really unfortunate. I would ask for the unanimous consent of all parties to recognize the people of the Northwest Territories correctly in Parliament. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-332, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Western ArcticConstituency name changeIntroduction and First readingNorthwest TerritoriesPrivate Members' BillsWestern ArcticShellyGloverSaint BonifaceClaudeGravelleNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodAirline SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, northern Canadians have been severely challenged by a spate of plane crashes in recent weeks killing 16 people. The government has failed to live up to its plans to beef up Transport Canada's team of safety inspectors. In fact, the number of inspectors has actually declined in the last two years.Air travel is a way of life for northerners and many other Canadians. They should not have to roll the dice when they board a plane. Why is the government dragging its feet on air safety? When will it live up to its promises and get serious about keeping--Air safetyAviation safety inspectorsDepartment of TransportOral questionsDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-JeanAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersKeeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act [Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' approach here is that there have not been any changes to the budget and that we really have debated it fully, so there is no requirement to spend time on it. That approach flies in the face of what is happening with the economy. I will refer to chapter 5 of the low-tax plan for jobs and growth. When we look at the plan for a balanced budget, we see that the government has charts that show what happens when we have a 1% decline in our GDP. They show a $3 billion to $4 billion increase in our deficit, and that is exactly what has happened. Many factors have changed in the economy. Those changes must change the government's plans, because it is falling behind on its plans.We need to talk about this. We need to understand where our economy is going in relation to the budget that came out last March.C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsSecond readingTime allocationTedMenziesHon.MacleodTedMenziesHon.Macleod//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersAviation SafetyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, northerners were devastated by the fourth airplane crash in only weeks. On Tuesday, an Air Tindi Cessna 208 crashed on a scheduled flight from Yellowknife to Lutselk'e, killing the pilot and one passenger. This crash comes only days after the funerals for two pilots killed when an Arctic Sunwest Twin Otter crashed in Yellowknife's Old Town, injuring seven others. The day after that crash, a single-engine Cessna crashed near Fort Simpson. Luckily the pilot walked away. On August 12, a First Air 737 crashed near Resolute Bay killing 12 of the 15 on board. The crew of that aircraft was based in Yellowknife.I am sure all members of the House will stand with me to extend their condolences to the families and friends of the victims of these crashes.For northerners, flying is something they do all the time due to the isolation of our communities. They have no other choice. Understandably, they are concerned about the safety of northern aviation. Last year, government officials promised to beef-up transport Canada's aviation safety inspection arm. My constituents want to know if the government has kept its promises.Air accidentsAir safetyDeaths and funeralsDepartment of TransportInspections and inspectorsMan-made disastersNorthern CanadaSafetyStatements by MembersColinCarrieOshawaBrentRathgeberEdmonton—St. Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, since it was created two years ago, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency has broken almost every rule in the book: out of control costs, contract mismanagement, improper use of credit cards and travel expenses, and the list goes on and on. This appalling record should put the Conservatives to shame.Since the Prime Minister refuses to take the advice of his minister and the department, especially on the location of the head office, will he now stand and take responsibility for the mismanagement of this agency?Audits and auditorsCanadian Northern Economic Development AgencyEconomic wasteGovernment expendituresOral questionsLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutLeonaAglukkaqHon.Nunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the U.S. government issued permits for Shell Oil to release 250 metric tonnes of pollution in the Beaufort Sea, along the disputed territorial waters between Canada and the U.S. The so-called environmental standards developed by the Americans were clearly intended to apply to these Canadian waters. If we do not act now, we will be shut out of our own waters.Has the government been involved in setting these environmental standards, or has it given up our Arctic waters and our Arctic sovereignty to the United States?Beaufort SeaCanada-United States relationsCanadian Arctic sovereigntyEnvironmental protectionOral questionsWater qualityLeonaAglukkaqHon.NunavutJohnBairdHon.Ottawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersKeeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget, which I have not had a chance to speak to before. I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.I will divide my speech into two sections. First, I will talk about why we do need, not only debate but much more information about the direction in which our economy is going in relation to what we are doing within the budget. The budget was first put forward in March 2011 and then re-entered in virtually the same form in June 2011. Since then, we have seen many changes to the world situation, including Canada's situation. The budget was based on projections of an increase to the GDP of about 3% a year. We hear that the IMF has said that it will be 2%. What does the budget say about that? The Conservatives talk about it here, and it is something we should address in the debate and in the information going forward. In their plan to return to balanced budgets, they talk very specifically on page 208 on the estimated impact of a one year, one percentage point decrease in real GDP growth on federal revenues, expenses and budgetary balance. Within that, we see quite clearly that in year one we will be short, from what we had projected as a deficit, of another $3.3 billion. Those are the figures of the Conservatives. That goes on to minus $3.6 billion next year.We have an economic turndown. Things were not as rosy as the government was presenting in a budget delivered before an election.Now we are in a situation where the increased deficit will likely match up to what government is proposing to cut out of expenditures, which is $4 billion. Where will that leave Canadians in the future? What pressure will it put on the government to continue to cut services, to continue to knock back on Canadians and not address the real issues, which, quite clearly, are finding ways to increase the revenue of the government in a way that would assist Canadians in righting their fiscal imbalance. The NDP has proposed that we not cut the corporate tax rate to the extent that we are. There has been debate about Manitoba cutting the corporate tax rate. Provinces are very poor examples of a corporate tax rate. Corporations move their head offices from province to province in order to attract the lowest corporate tax rate in a particular province. I saw that phenomenon in the Northwest Territories in the year 2002-03, which upset the balance of our territorial budget by about $300 million. So I know what I am talking about.When we talk about provinces, they are the worst collectors of corporate taxes in the country because they are under constant pressure to lower their rates in relation to other provinces. The responsibility should lie with the federal government to collect the corporate taxes uniformly across the country.Where is the debate about what is happening to our economy and to our budget in a real good fashion? We can approve these expenditures but do we understand where they are leading the country? Yes, we should debate the budget.I will now turn to a more hopeful sign. There was an item in the budget in March and carried forward to June of $150 million for a road between Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik, an important part of the infrastructure of the north. It is a part of the infrastructure of the north that in 2007 I introduced the idea to the previous minister, Chuck Strahl, in a meeting that we required these roads and this particular road. I am glad to see that the government has taken this on. However, the $150 million will not build that road. The $150,000 will build part of the road. The rest of the cost of the road will be assigned to the Government of the Northwest Territories.(1525)In March of this year, I had a private member's bill in front of the House. The government, a person, voted against raising the borrowing limit for my Government in the Northwest Territories to fund valued infrastructure projects in the Northwest Territories. Since then, the Minister of Finance has promised our finance minister over and over again that he would give us some answers on the borrowing limit so that we can invest in the north, make choices on infrastructure and support our economy at a time when the recession is hitting us.The Mackenzie Valley Highway is a project that the whole north supports. Up and down the valley, aboriginal land claims organizations have taken a section of the highway, have done the preliminary estimates, have the material together and are ready to go, in the very near future, to environment assessment on the whole Mackenzie Valley Highway, a distance of some 1,200 kilometres from the southern part of the territory to Inuvik and then on to Tuktoyaktuk. It is a road that, over the next two decades, would open up, and I am not exaggerating, tens of billions of dollars of development that would impact all Canadians in a positive fashion.We have a great made-in-Canada project where likely very little of what we spend on the project will escape Canada to other businesses in other countries. It will occur in Canada. It is a great project that will provide relief to many communities that do not now have roads up and down the Mackenzie Valley, that have incredibly high costs of living and have isolated conditions that are really not appropriate in this day and age. We have a great opportunity but we need to improve the fiscal capacity of the Government of the Northwest Territories. The federal government would not support my private member's bill in that regard. It stood up to a person against it. We need it and we need to understand the direction we would take with it. The government needs to come up with a better plan for investing in that highway.In the April election, I was proud to see that my party, the New Democratic Party, had identified in our platform $400 million over five years to invest in northern infrastructure, which is quite a bit more than the $150 million that was put forward for the Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik road. That is the kind of investment that is needed from the federal government, as well as from the Government of the Northwest Territories.We have a vision of what we want to accomplish in the Northwest Territories. Aboriginal treaty organizations up and down the valley are supporting this effort. It is time. This is a great opportunity for Canadians. It is a great opportunity to help our economy at time when we need stimulus in the economy. We need to recognize what we can do in the next few years that will improve our economy, whether it is green jobs, which will return to us and make us a stronger and better society, or a project like the Mackenzie Valley Highway that is needed to serve the orderly development of very important resources. These are things that we should be investing in and talking about right now.This is a time when we need plans and leadership. We need to understand how this country can avoid what is clearly a gathering storm of fiscal recession that will eventually fall onto the land of Canada. We need this kind of positive debate about the budget. It is a budget that, after four months, is not really accurate and does not provide all the answers, which is why we are standing here today.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget deficitC-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measuresCorporate income taxGovernment billsInfrastructure Stimulus FundMackenzie HighwayNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingSplitting speaking timeTransportation infrastructureJoySmithKildonan—St. PaulKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersKeeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, when we talk about climate change, we can say that we want to stop climate change and to do what we can to mitigate the advancing climate warmth before it happens. We can argue about whether or not that can happen, but the region of the country where I live probably has the fastest changing climate in Canada right now according to most scientific observers.We do have impacts. We have problems inherent within infrastructure that will cost us more and more money in the future. We have problems with an increasing number of forest fires. We have problems with declining caribou herds.Our whole society is having to accept that there will be adaptation. We know that no matter what we do in the next number of years we will not be able to stop many of the impacts that one or two degrees' warming in the earth's core has on northern conditions.In the absence of this action by the government and many in the rest of the world, we need to see that adaptation plans are very clearly outlined for what is going to happen.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measuresClimate change and global warmingGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesSecond readingKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthRaymondCôtéBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersKeeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, what we want is for the federal government to recognize that northerners understand very well what we need to do.The government should support our territorial government in its efforts to deal with these issues. The territorial government is moving very quickly on many climate change mitigation issues. It also has an aggressive green energy strategy that it is putting big dollars into, in the absence of any money from the federal government in that regard.The other side of it is the federal government is being very paternalistic about the borrowing limit for the territorial government. The territorial government is saddled with a borrowing limit that is far less than what it should be. We are a burgeoning, developing territory. We need to invest, and yet we are hung up by the Northwest Territories Act which limits our fiscal ability to put money into things that will actually make our society work better.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measuresClimate change and global warmingGovernment billsNorthwest TerritoriesSecond readingRaymondCôtéBeauport—LimoilouCharmaineBorgTerrebonne—Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1120)[English]Mr. Speaker, on this fine morning I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill regarding the selection of senators and amendment of the Constitution Act,1867.For a long time this Parliament has been made up of two chambers, one elected and one unelected. When the provinces were first set up they had the two chamber concept but all of them got rid of the second chamber. History has shown us that the legislatures of Canada can function very well without a second chamber. The legislatures representing the provinces across this country do not have senates now and they are doing a fine job.What has been my experience with the Senate here in Parliament over the last five years? I have a very difficult time identifying the positive work of the hundred or so members in the other chamber. It is not that they are not good Canadians or that they have poor work habits or that they are not intellectually capable people; it is that they are simply not listened to when they make reports. In the last while, there has been a change in the Senate. It has become much more political. The senators who are there very much play a role in determining government policy. Now that the government has a majority, the Senate acts in accordance with the government's wishes in moving forward government legislation or in blocking legislation that comes forward from other members of this House. I would say that the climate change bill is at the root of the change that has taken place. That bill was voted on and approved by elected members in the House of Commons but was summarily rejected by the Senate. This represents for me a clear delineation of the problem with the Senate. Ignoring the Senate and allowing it to remain a basket of good intentions where reports are written and nothing is done with them is the old model. The new model is one in which the Senate acts as a policeman over the House of Commons for any of the private members who might not agree with the prevailing view within that Senate, whether there is a Liberal majority or a Conservative majority in the Senate. That is what has been happening.Of course the New Democrats have supported the abolition of that institution for a long time. We are very concerned that the Senate does not add to the democratic process. In reality, it is taking away from the democratic process. It is taking away from the rights of elected members and from the directions that are given clearly by the majority of the elected members in this House of Commons. The situation is not good and it is getting worse.I am glad to have the opportunity to debate Senate reform. I want to assist in improving the democratic process that we use to run this country, to provide protection for the rights of Canadians and to give good direction to the future for our country. I am positive we are all here for that. However, what we have here does not strike me as a likely addition to the good work of this body.(1125)I cannot help but continue to support our position to abolish the Senate and look for ways to find approbation among the people of Canada for that position, because that is the democratic process. A referendum on the future of the Senate and opening the debate to Canadians is a great idea. We support that idea. When this bill fails, as it is likely to do, perhaps the government will consider that to be a better way to go about this exercise. This is a better way to determine which direction we should take. My colleagues can rest assured the people actually can make choices. They have the capacity to look at what is going on and make good choices.Having spoken to the general direction of the Senate, this bill purports to make changes to the Senate to give us exactly what I am not sure. I am not sure what the government's vision of the Senate would be after the bill passed, which is very unlikely, or what its vision of the Senate should be. The Prime Minister uses the Senate as an instrument of control over the democratic process in this House. Would the changes made in the bill increase the Prime Minister's use of the Senate? Would it become even more of a tool for parties to use when they are in government? Or when a party is thrown out of government, would that party use the Senate as a tool to subvert the democratic will of the House of Commons?Four years from now after the next election when the people have turfed out the present government but it has a very large majority in the Senate, I can see a situation where things could be made very difficult for a new direction for Canada. I do not want that. I am not here to create a situation where those who are not in power have their hands around the throats of those who have been democratically elected to represent the people of Canada. I am not interested in that. I hope the other side is not interested in that either. I appeal to hon. members as Canadians to think about that. When Canadians make a choice, that choice should be represented in the House of Commons and not in the Senate.What do we see in the proposed changes to the Senate? All senators would be restricted to a single nine-year term. They would need to be registered with a political party in order for people to vote for them in the elections that would be held in the provinces. People would have to register, for example, as a Conservative, a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Green Party. However, once they were elected, it would be for one electoral term and that is it.Where is the recourse of the voter to senators? They would be in there for nine years. They would be under the direction of the government or the opposition, whichever party they were registered with. How would that work for sober second thought, for careful delineation of what is going on in the House, for advice given to the House, for supporting the democratic process in the House? How would that actually help? Where is the vision? The Prime Minister would not be required to appoint any of the people elected by the provinces through registered parties. The Prime Minister could make his choice.We really have changed nothing. If the Prime Minister did not like a particular candidate, he could ignore the person throughout his time in office. If it does not extend to six years and the Prime Minister is thrown out after the next election, perhaps that person who was elected by the people in the region would have a chance to be appointed by the new prime minister. As long as that happened within the next few years, they would have that opportunity. If not, good-bye to the voters' intent to put somebody in to represent them. (1130)If the Senate is to represent the regions and the only way people can get elected to the Senate is to be part of a registered political party, and once they are in there, they still must be appointed by a prime minister, I just do not see how that would push forward the regional issues that someone who is actually elected by the region to represent the region would be in a position to do so. I think it would leave that senator much indebted to the political party and very little indebted to the region that will never get vote for him or her again anyhow.Those are some of the provisions that the Conservatives have put forward to change the Senate.What do we see? Not much of this will make a difference to what is happening now. It will not make a difference to the fact that the Senate is now being used to subvert the will of the majority in this House of Commons, which happened in the last two years. Nothing will stop that. If the government does not succeed in being re-elected four years from now, it will have a stranglehold over in the Senate. We will fight our way through that, as a new government, with extreme difficulty. That will become a vehicle for non-change and a vehicle for continuing the will of a government past its time, which is unfortunate to a Canadian democracy. That will not work.The Conservatives railed at the Liberal senators for three years, until they got a majority. They hated them. They said that they were always standing in their way and always making it more difficult for them. What were they going to do? They were going to perpetuate, through this legislation, the continuation of that problem that the Conservatives saw very clearly when they started their time as government.Where is their vision? What is their vision for the Senate of Canada? They should tell us.However, like most legislation that the Conservatives put forward, they do not put a vision forward with it. They are scared to do that. They are scared to tell us what they are really thinking and what they really want for this country, which is unfortunate because this country needs leadership and direction right now. They need to work to make things better.However, the only way we will do that is with disclosure, with understanding. When we do not have it, this will not work.Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsClimate change and global warmingElection of SenateGovernment billsLegislationPartisanshipPolitical allegianceSecond readingSenate reformKellieLeitchSimcoe—GreyJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I actually do not see that as the trend that has developed in the Senate. I see the trend developing in the Senate much more in a direction of political parties being the primary driver of the Senate, which is unfortunate because, quite clearly, the good work that Senators have done in the past, and there has been good work, has been when they have spoken impartially on legislation, when they have made their way forward with reports that do not speak to any particular political direction but speak to the realities of Canadian life and the way legislation could be written that would better suit Canadians. Those are things that are useful. I do not say that they are useful to $100 million a year. I have trouble with that because there is simply not enough work being done there to make that $100 million viable.C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsCostsElection of SenateGovernment billsPartisanshipPolitical powerSecond readingSenate and senatorsSenate reformJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-NordBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not see any contradiction in what I said. If the prime minister would have the right to overrule any election, how could that possibly be part of a democratic process? That would be like asking a U.S. senator running for the Republicans to get permission from President Obama before he is elected. If we are going to have an elected Senate, then let it be elected. People make the choice and that is the choice they are stuck with.Another point in the bill is that senators would need to be members of registered political parties. How is that democratic? How is it democratic for somebody who wants to represent his region to have to indicate his support for a particular party when he would be going into a body that is supposed to represent the region and speak for the region?When those elements are put into the bill, the democratic process is taken away.C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsDemocracyElection of SenateGovernment billsPolitical partiesSecond readingSenate reformBradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleAlexandrineLatendresseLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will speak to why I favour the abolition of the Senate. We do not have a 200-year history like the United States. However, there are many other countries that have two elected Houses where they have an arrangement between the two elected bodies to work together to create legislation and make government work.A directly elected body of senators could be a terrible imposition on the smooth running of the Government of Canada. There could be very different points of view about how the government should be run, what direction it should take, and that would be coming from two groups of elected members. The senators, who are not now elected, do not have much jam when it comes to speaking for the people. If they were elected, I agree that they would have a lot more influence and confidence in their ability to stand up to the government. I would say that it would be an extreme problem for our democracy right now. We do not have the underlying principles or the direction for two elected bodies in this House.Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsParliament of CanadaSecond readingSenate reformAlexandrineLatendresseLouis-Saint-LaurentKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, having a debate about the Senate is a great idea. I happen to favour the approach of abolition, much as the provinces have with their senates because that is likely to be the most democratic thing to do. I do not see that creating an elected Senate in the end will be a good thing for our democracy. Without attention to a whole number of issues that come out of our developed political system, imposing an elected Senate on it will cause more grief than productive results for Canadians.Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsSecond readingSenate reformKellieLeitchSimcoe—GreyKennedyStewartBurnaby—Douglas//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have found the Senate to be useful to them in the last while in stopping legislation in a minority situation that they could not stop in the House. I think that has been of some interest to them. In the long term, over the next dozen years if they are thrown out as government, if they legitimize the power of the Senate they will have a powerful instrument to thwart the will of any other party that takes control of the government. It is not simply to massage their base. I look at it in a different fashion because that has been my experience in the last five years in the House.C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsParliament of CanadaSecond readingSenate and senatorsSenate reformKennedyStewartBurnaby—DouglasTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation on a variety issues surrounding Senate reform, including the decoration on his wheat fields, which I thought was quite entertaining.He spoke about public support for this. In fact, the public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from 2011 shows that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate, up from 25% one year earlier.In the spirit of democracy, would it not be incumbent upon the government to determine what Canadians think is a good plan of attack for dealing with the Senate? Would it not be a good idea to open it up for a much wider ranging discussion that would come with a referendum? Would that not make more sense than putting forward a bill that is likely to fail anyhow?Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsSecond readingSenate reformBlaineCalkinsWetaskiwinBlaineCalkinsWetaskiwin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's grand flourish at the end, although it seemed a bit inappropriate since what the bill would do is give the Prime Minister the option that he has right now. He can, right now, agree to appoint a senator elected from a provincial legislature or from the workings of a provincial election. He can do that right now.If we were to pass the bill, the Prime Minister would not be required to appoint those elected. He can appoint whomever he feels like appointing. What would we be adding to Canadians? We would not have very much at all in that regard.Would the hon. member explain exactly what he meant when he said this would be a grand change for Canadians?C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsProvinces, territories, statesSecond readingSenate reformDeanDel MastroPeterboroughDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, in standing to speak to the bill, once again I come up against a problem that we have in Parliament. I find it difficult to understand the motivation of the government moving forward with legislation. The parroted answers government members give to questions and their very carefully controlled speeches do not provide us with much of their motivation. In many cases we end up trying to find the motivation of the government in this endeavour. We have good legislation that could be applied to human smugglers. We know how to deal with them. What is it that the government is trying to accomplish with Bill C-4?I have a list of 80 organizations that deal with immigrants in Canada and they are all opposed to the bill. I have not seen the government come up with a list of organizations that support it in its efforts. Why not?Mr. Scott Armstrong: Every poll supports it.Mr. Dennis Bevington: They say that millions of Canadians are supporting them. Millions of Canadians do not understand the Conservatives' motivation either, and the people who attempt to understand their motivation tend to understand that the bill is not a good idea and it should not be supported. Why is that? Canada has a great reputation with regard to immigration. We bring in lots of people, but we have a point system that very clearly sets certain standards for people who come into this country. We have decided that we want the best the world has to offer in terms of the people who come to this country.Lately we have not received many refugees. Refugees do not come under the point system in the same sense that immigrants do. We have a system which in the past has allowed quite a number of refugees into Canada. Canada has been a haven for refugees from around the world. This is good, but what will happen with this legislation that has been put forward by the Conservatives? When the world's population understands what this new legislation that governs how refugees are treated in Canada, what will that do for the perception of individuals in a war-torn country who have to make a choice about where they should apply for refugee status? What will that do? It will send a message to those refugees that they had better watch out if they come to Canada, because if they do anything wrong to get here, anything we can interpret as illegal, they will be under severe distress. There will be no recourse. They will be in trouble.I am the son of a refugee. My mother was brought to Canada by my grandmother from Russia, after the Russian revolution. All the family my grandmother had in Russia was wiped out. She escaped. After her death I found a birth certificate. We think it was forged. She used a forged birth certificate to come to Canada because she had no alternative. She had to get through what was a very difficult time in this world. If that had happened today and my mother was a child of that refugee who came to Canada with papers that were forged, under illegal circumstances, they would be put into detention.What did happen under the old system is that they settled in western Canada and became great members of our society, pillars of the community, good people with a grandson in Parliament who is able to speak up for that type of person, who is able to stand here and talk about that kind of person.(1700)What are we doing here? We are going to limit refugees coming to our country by their understanding of our laws passed here in Bill C-4. This is going to change the way refugees view Canada in a serious way. We will turn our backs on many people in the years to come.We will continue to bring in the immigrants we want, the ones who meet our classification, the ones who are the cream of the crop, the ones we think will do well for our economy and our society, and that is great. That is wonderful.However, for those who are escaping from war-torn countries and have to do whatever it is they have to do to get into another country are going to be under some duress. If they are poor and if they have to rely on others to assist them in doing this, if they have to get on a boat with 50 other people, they will be putting themselves in distress by Canadian law. That is a pity. It is shocking that Canada is going to turn in this direction under the Conservative government. Eighty groups say not to do this. Where is the support of learned Canadian society for what the Conservatives are doing here? It does not exist because Canadians by and large are compassionate and understanding. The learned ones are that way, too. We have a situation where the learned are not on side. The Conservatives say that Canadians are on side but there is no evidence of this at all, none at all; it is simply made up. Operating by emotion alone, the Conservatives are making decisions about the future of this country and how we deal with issues. That is the wrong way to govern. We have seen this two or three times already since Parliament reassembled with the new majority. We do not have the ability that we did in the last Parliament to stop some of this stuff. We will have to rely on public opinion to change it.An hon. member: Public opinion is on side with exactly what we are doing.An hon. member: The poll was on May 2.Mr. Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that we are going to lose this one. No, we will not. The Conservatives will lose one four years from now because of the things they are doing. The things they are doing now will come home to roost in four years. It will all add up and Canadians will understand what is going on here with this type of government action.I do not have much more to say about this bill. My colleagues have laid out the conditions of this bill in good fashion. The Conservatives should think hard about what they are doing to the nature of this country, the country in which my grandmother and mother found refuge. Unfortunately, that refuge will not be as available for others.Armstrong, ScottBirth certificatesC-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActConservative CaucusCounterfeitingGovernment billsHuman smugglingHumanitarian groundsImmigration and immigrantsInterest groupsPublic opinion pollsReferences to membersRefugee statusRefugeesSecond readingFrançoisChoquetteDrummondHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, in response to that I would like to quote from the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees:The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.There is what an international body, the United Nations, has said should be the case for refugees. This bill is contrary to that sentiment and that law. By that nature, it will cause refugees to take a hard look at Canada when they are looking at where they can go for refuge.C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActConvention relating to the Status of RefugeesGovernment billsHuman smugglingInternational lawRefugee statusSecond readingHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaTedHsuKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I cannot give my colleague a precise answer. However, I do feel that, yes, this problem is a minor problem. We have the laws in place to deal with human smuggling, so that is not the issue.As I said before, my desire is to understand the government's motivation in putting forward this kind of draconian legislation to deal with a problem that is not of significance to a country as grand and powerful as Canada. It just does not make sense to me and I cannot make sense of it.C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActGovernment billsHuman smugglingRefugee statusSecond readingShip passengersTedHsuKingston and the IslandsJeanCrowderNanaimo—Cowichan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersNational AwardsInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate some NWT residents who have received national recognition this year.Fort Smith Slave River Journal was awarded the best all around newspaper from the Canadian Community Newspaper Association in its circulation category.Dr. Curtis Brown from the South Slave Divisional Education Council was given the Canadian Association of School Administrators Award as the best school superintendent in Canada.Sylvia Clement, a 29-year-old single mother of two, was awarded the Council of the Federation 2011 Literacy Award for her work.Di Ann Blesse was the winner of the Canadian Teachers' Federation Outstanding Aboriginal Educator Award.Paul Bennett, principal of Yellowknife's J.H. Sissons Schools, was chosen as one of Canada's 32 outstanding principals.Buffalo Airways won two Gemini Awards for the reality show, Ice Pilots.All over the vast NWT, our residents work hard to build our territory. The results are exceptional, and these national awards recognize that.Awards presentationsBennett, PaulBlesse, Di AnnBrown, CurtisBuffalo AirwaysClement, SylviaNorthwest TerritoriesSlave River JournalStatements by MembersGeraldKeddySouth Shore—St. Margaret'sDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to ask a question because I have been following this debate as well. In my hand I have a list of organizations that are opposed to Bill C-4. Some 80 civil society organizations dealing with immigration and refugee issues across the country, legal groups, church groups and a wide variety people have all come out opposed to the legislation. Is the member familiar with any list that the Conservatives might have that would show some support from civil society, from the people who work in this field, on this legislation, so we could have a balance where we could see that the Conservative government is reaching out to society to try to determine what society thinks of its legislation?Here is the list of the organizations that do not support it. Has the member heard of another list that shows civil society support?C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActForeign personsGovernment billsHuman smugglingIllegal migrantsMass arrivalsRefugee statusSecond readingAndrewCashDavenportAndrewCashDavenport//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (0120)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for an excellent presentation, as always. The passion that he shows is genuine.I want to go back to one issue he talked about and that is the lockout. In question period on Wednesday I noticed that the Prime Minister said the wage increase in the government's bill is similar to that of other public servants. I think that was a slip of the tongue because the next day he said the wage increase is like that of civil servants. I really think he is talking about employees in the post office as being civil servants. If they are civil servants, then he is their boss. The Prime Minister, the head of the government, is the boss of civil servants. Why can he not take responsibility for the insidious lockout that is taking place in the postal service?Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingPeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2755)[English]Mr. Speaker, at this rare hour it is my first opportunity to debate in this new Parliament. I am not pleased that I have to debate this particular issue, but I am happy that Parliament is making the effort to look at this issue. It is a very serious and important issue to many people across the country, especially in my riding in the Northwest Territories, where postal service has been an essential part of the communications system for far-flung communities over thousands of miles. As my colleague mentioned in his case in Quebec, community post offices are very important and serve a function that in many ways goes beyond simply business service and becomes part of the culture of the community. Many join with their friends at the post office because there is no door-to-door delivery in the Northwest Territories. People go to post offices to get mail from their mailboxes. It is an experience that brings people together. In many respects, many of these communities absolutely need the service. There was a case in Colville Lake last Christmas. The chief of Colville Lake was working with me to try to get COD service for his community so that people could acquire gifts for their children after buying them online. Those types of services for northern communities are limited but extremely important. What happens with the post office means a lot to northerners.Let us look at this move by the government and what it means. The Government of Canada really is the boss of the post office and through its crown corporation runs the post office. We have heard the Prime Minister say in question period that he wants to offer a wage settlement to the postal workers in the same way it was offered to other public servants. The government knows that its responsibility for the postal service is quite large.What has the government done in the north in the last number of years in terms of policy with Canada Post? One thing it has done, which has turned out to be an abysmal failure, is the revision of the food mail program. The food mail program was an essential public service to northerners across this vast land. People needed it to provide them with the basic essentials of life. With the Conservatives having privatized this service to select businesses, there is a situation where the opportunities for people to take advantage of food mail have been severely curtailed. Protests have gone up around the north. The Conservatives' policy changes to privatize an essential part of the northern service of Canada Post has been nothing short of abysmal. Northerners do not have a system that works now and it is essential that this be changed. People are going hungry. People are not getting the proper food. This is not working. When changes are made to the postal service and the kinds of things that it provides, there are sometimes very serious results.When we talk about the relationship between the postal corporation and its employees, we are talking about a very serious matter that can affect many of the things that go on in this country. I really do not want the postal service denigrated to any greater extent than it already has been for the people in isolated communities right across this country. (2800)Are these people simply a drain on the public purse? No.Quite clearly, the resources which are driving the recovery that we see in the country come from the isolated regions. Our regions are important to the future of Canada. We need good services. We need services that work for us. We need public services that are fair.My concern with the actions of the government early in the term of its first majority is that it is trying to take on this essential public service and force it down, to take the wind out of its sails and change this into something else, as it did with the food mail with an incredible result. When I first came to Parliament, the Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, had a great friend in John Howard. The Conservatives brought him here and he spoke in Parliament. It was clear that the Prime Minister liked Mr. Howard a lot. In fact, he liked him so much that he took some of his speeches and gave them in other places. That was quite entertaining for many of us who could recognize the problem he had with his great friendship with John Howard.The Howard government took on workers in its country very successfully at the start. It was very successful at the start. This is a word of caution to the Conservative government. The Howard government was very successful at taking little bites at the rights of workers. Then, toward the end of its time, it took too big a bite. AustraliaBack-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationColville LakeFood Mail ProgramFood supplyGovernment billsHoward, JohnNorthern CanadaPost offices and outletsPostal servicesPrivatizationRemote communitiesSecond readingPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-MadeleineDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (0400)[English]It was a bigger bite than he could chew and now Mr. Howard is enjoying a forced retirement. He is out of government and he has been replaced. For the Conservative government which is starting off its majority by taking this rather draconian action against the workers of the country, take this as notice. If this is the members' start on the Howard road, we will be after them throughout this Parliament, and when it comes to the next election, if they continue down this road, they will end up in the same place as John Howard, in the dustbin of politics.AustraliaBack-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsHoward, JohnPostal servicesSecond readingDeanDel MastroPeterboroughGordonBrownLeeds—Grenville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (0400)[English]Mr. Speaker, do I think unions are always correct? No, I do not. However, do I think that the process of collective bargaining, where two bodies have the opportunity to interact, is a good process? Yes, I do. That is the process we use in this country.We did not see much impact from the rotating work action that was taken by the union. It did not upset our service in the Northwest Territories. What we have seen though, with the lockout, is obviously a major disruption. Emails and complaints have flowed to me since the lockout. People were not too concerned about the rotating work actions that the union took because those were reasonable steps. Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingGordonBrownLeeds—GrenvilleLoisBrownNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (0405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would tell them to look at the Conservative government that would not tell the postal corporation not to have a lockout.What is wrong with the government? Why was it silent in this regard? That is what I would say to people. When it comes to the importance of Canada Post, yes, I do not think we have had one disagreement in this Parliament about the importance of Canada Post, but what we have had is a major disagreement about the failure of the government to stand up and tell management it cannot act in this rather ridiculous fashion.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingLoisBrownNewmarket—AuroraNikiAshtonChurchill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington: (0405)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development wrote an excellent report on the food mail and I hope the government looks at it because the situation with food mail has to change. We cannot simply go on with the policy the way it has been outlined. It is not working.If we do not have changes, we will have problems. I appeal to the government to get busy and change that policy. It is not working.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationFood Mail ProgramFood supplyGovernment billsNorthern CanadaPostal servicesPrivatizationSecond readingNikiAshtonChurchillMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (0440)[English]No lockout.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingDeanDel MastroPeterboroughDeanDel MastroPeterborough//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, my thoughts tonight are about our asset, Canada Post Corporation. The main asset of this corporation is its employees, the people who work there. That is the main asset that belongs to the people of Canada. Is the government taking care of this asset? Is the government respecting this asset? Is the government taking the steps to ensure this asset, these human beings, are well protected and covered in the work they are doing? The profit from the company for the Government of Canada is fairly large and works out to about $6,000 an employee. Why is the government treating these employees in this fashion when they are the main asset of our great corporation?Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have conducted this debate for a number of days now, and I want to read this email into the record. It came from a constituent of mine who wrote me on the first day. He stated, “I have emailed my comments to many members in the last 36 hours.... That being said, after having watched many hours of the debate since last night, I have to admit that my position has changed tonight. As a small business owner, I had felt this disruption was not good for business. However, knowing that the government has brought this on by locking workers out and could easily reverse this decision, upsets me. I feel misled about this issue by my government. My mail is tied up by the government. I am disappointed, very disappointed with this Conservative government. Despite the hardships brought on by this, I can get my business through it. I can't speak for other businesses, but I will manage. As of this evening, I now believe the government should end the lock out so the mail can move rather than legislating members back to work.”Does the member agree that this debate is worthwhile and it is changing Canadians' opinions about the nature of this government and its relationship to—Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingOliviaChowTrinity—SpadinaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (6400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from the north in looking for solutions to some of the issues that face us today. During the last Conservative government, we saw the government absolutely change the nature of Canada Post in the north by taking away the food mail program from Canada's north. The alternate program that has put in place does not allow people to have their choices, and it is causing great disruption in our communities. Perhaps my colleague would want to speak about this, because of course, his communities, like mine, are tremendously impacted by these types of government decisions. Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationFood Mail ProgramGovernment billsPostal servicesRemote communitiesSecond readingSmall communitiesRomeoSaganashAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouRomeoSaganashAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Small Businesses]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, when it comes to talking economic policy, sometimes it is difficult to ask questions in a short fashion.Most of the profits of large corporations in Canada these days are made through the sale of products on the commodities market. Could my colleague, the esteemed professor in economics, explain to me how the increased tax on a product that is sold on the world commodities market will come back to consumers in Canada?Corporate income taxJob creationOpposition motionsSmall and medium-sized enterprisesMaximeBernierHon.BeauceMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersResumption and Continuation of Postal Services LegislationInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to question the parliamentary secretary on her seemingly inconsistent approach to this.She says the government has taken the recent public sector wage increases into account when it put this legislation together, yet at the same time she does not recognize Canada Post as a crown corporation.Why would the parliamentary secretary not put forward to that crown corporation, the requirement that it quits this lockout, which has really been the problem in this whole dispute? That has stopped the postal service from working at all.AdjournmentAdoption at all stagesBack-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 3Labour disputesPostal servicesRules of debateStrikes and lockoutsDeniseSavoieVictoriaKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSupporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy ActInterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent presentation. The depth of knowledge that he has demonstrated on this particular issue is really quite profound.As an old municipal politician, though, I always like to go to budgetary revenues. I have often heard the Conservatives say that this is a low-tax plan, yet when we take a look at the plan in its entirety up to 2016, we see that with regard to personal income tax the government is expecting to take out of the system an extra 50%. It raised $100 billion last year in personal income tax and in 2016 it is looking at $151 billion, an increase of 50% over five or six years.I know the rate of GDP and the rate of growth in the workforce. How does this translate into low taxes when we see the $50 billion increase that is being projected over six years?Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget deficitC-3, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011Economic recoveryGovernment billsReport stageHoangMaiBrossard—La PrairieHoangMaiBrossard—La Prairie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time in this new Parliament. Representing the people of the Northwest Territories is always a great pleasure. I was hoping to rise on the budget, but I also do not mind speaking on the throne speech because we have not had a debate on it yet and there are a number of serious issues with it.I want to compliment my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands on his re-election as well, because I know he is a hardworking MP and will continue to be so.He talked about the long gun registry. The Conservatives' plan to take out the long-gun registry will change the ability of provinces to institute their own registries. Is the federal government considering making available to the provinces the information that is now available within the national long gun registry, if they wish to constitute their own long gun registries under their property rights acts or any other legislation pertaining to them? Would the government be willing to turn that information available in the national gun registry over to the provinces?Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget debatesFirearms registryLong gunsWays and Means No. 1DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague went into a discussion on the per-vote subsidy and said that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize parties that they do not agree with. I think the basic principle of the per-vote subsidy is one that says that if someone voted for that particular party then that particular party will get $1.75 a year. The voters, or the taxpayers, get the choice of who will receive the dollars from the federal government. The voters make that choice. They are given more opportunities and more reasons to vote for their particular party and engage in the process because, if they do not, then the particular party that they would support would not get the subsidy.How is it against the democratic principle to say, “I vote, therefore the party I vote for will receive $1.75?” To my mind, the argument that my hon. colleague has made is one that is not logical and not straightforward.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget debatesGovernment assistancePolitical partiesWays and Means No. 1CandiceHoeppnerPortage—LisgarCandiceHoeppnerPortage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my new colleague for his excellent address on small businesses and their workings in Brant.However, I would like to point out to him that I attended a breakfast here at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in March. Its economist said quite clearly that lowering corporate taxes was not the incentive that businesses use worldwide for locating in particular places. That was said very clearly. As well, the other point I would like to make is that most of the corporate taxes paid in Canada are paid by corporations that are exploiting resources traded in world markets. Therefore, those prices are not changed by the tax rate.For a corporation producing oil in this country and selling it at a world market price, the corporate tax rate does not change the cost of that oil to the consumer. There is no change to that cost, because it is a world market price. In Canada, therefore, the largest sum of corporate tax breaks does not pass down to the consumer.I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget debatesCorporate income taxTax reliefWays and Means No. 1PhilMcColemanBrantPhilMcColemanBrant//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30836DennisBevingtonDennis-BevingtonNorthwest TerritoriesNew Democratic Party CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BevingtonDennisFraser_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersThe Budget [Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance ]InterventionMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): (1755)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his inspiring speech on the budget. There is no doubt that he was inspired by it, anyhow, I am sure.However, my question for him is about low taxes. I look at this budget and at the projections for personal income tax over the period of the next six years and I see that personal income tax collection in Canada will go from $100 billion to $151 billion over that period of time. That will be about a 50% increase in the amount of personal income tax that will come out of the average Canadian's pocket.There will be inflation and an increase in the workforce, but those will not add up to that much of an increase in taxation. I would like my colleague to explain to me how he can consider this a low tax budget for Canadians when we see such a marvellous increase in the tax take.Budget 2011 (June 6, 2011)Budget debatesPersonal income taxTaxationWays and Means No. 1StephenWoodworthKitchener CentreStephenWoodworthKitchener CentreINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE