Dennis Bevington

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 20 seconds is not nearly enough time to touch on the damage being done by over-exploiting resources, whether it is to the service industries in Alberta that cannot hire anyone any more, whether it is to the--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as someone from the Western Arctic, I am very pleased to comment on those.

The fundamentals of the $1 billion in cuts to these programs were not so much ideological as emotional. We have an emotional reaction to things that really make no sense to any Canadians. I cannot say how the inner workings of the Conservative caucus managed to come up with these cuts. I do not understand it. To me it was emotional, “I don't like this, I don't like that, let's grab some here, we don't like those people so we are going to do this”.

As to ideology, there is a mirror to what the Liberal Party did through the 1990s with the budgets, such as reducing corporate taxes, passing the burden on to Canadians in different ways, selling out on resources. I do not see much difference, ideologically, between the Conservatives and the Liberals on this.

This is a question that is open to all Canadians. Is there a difference on the broad brush ideology between the Liberals and the Conservatives? I do not see it. Although, on the other hand, emotionally, the Conservatives were frustrated in many ways with some of the minor things the Liberals did and took out various programs. The court challenges program was an emotional reaction, much like we see on some of the crime bills coming up. People will use this as retail politics. They play on the emotions of people rather than speaking to the needs of Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

With the fiscal capacity that the government has, the budget was an opportunity to invest. It was also a time to invest because, of course, for 13 years we experienced the rather penurious actions of the previous Liberal government toward the people of Canada. While it reduced the fiscal deficit, it increased the human deficit in Canada.

Toward the end of their time, the Liberals softened, but not completely. I know that in 2005 the New Democratic Party had to fight very hard in that budget to ensure the Liberals did not get away with another tax cut for corporations and that they invested that money in people. That was very good and that is working.

Even within this budget and within Parliament today, the two parties of the right, because that is what they really are, are living off the good avails of the New Democratic Party and the work that it did in 2005. They are dining out on it. We do not want to forsake them of a good meal but they should remember who the cooks were.

In this budget, instead of investing more in the needs of Canadians, the Conservative government decided to squander another $7 billion in corporate tax cuts and to keep the subsidies to oil and gas companies. Even with that, it is currently running a bigger budget surplus than the Liberals did.

Just into this fiscal year, it is $2 billion ahead of its estimates. What did it turn around and do? It announced a billion dollars in cuts to programs that were in place all over the country, this little bit of money that was handed out under the Liberals in a variety of very serious areas, such as literacy, women, museums and health. The Conservatives must have sat in their caucuses and decided on how many programs they could cut a few dollars from and make them work even less than the Liberals did.

I want to talk about the tobacco control program that was cut for aboriginal people. In the Northwest Territories, prior to 2000 we had a smoking rate of 45% in our population. Over the last four years we have managed to bring that down to less 35%. That is a direct and positive result of our Government of the Northwest Territories putting money into it. The federal government also put money into the program because, of course, half our population is aboriginal.

We had the very successful butthead program in the schools which discouraged every child from taking up cigarette smoking. That is gone now. There was no consultation and no recognition of the importance of these programs. I am sure the territorial government will try to do something to replace it, but that is a loss.

The sale of tobacco in Canada contributes $8.8 billion in taxes to federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is very important that we reinvest in the opportunities to reduce tobacco use. Just because we are on the dole with tobacco taxes does not mean that we should ignore our responsibility.

I now want to talk about the corporate tax cuts that the Conservatives have proposed.

Across the country, corporate taxes in provincial hands have been spiralling downward. Provinces have to compete with each other for corporations to establish offices in their jurisdictions and pay their corporate taxes in those jurisdictions. The provinces are in a race to provide the lowest corporate tax rate to attract the companies to do this. Private individuals, of course, cannot afford to relocate just simply to get a lower personal income tax rate, but corporations can manage this quite well.

The responsibility for an across the board corporate tax rate lies with the federal government. In reality the federal government is the best agency to collect corporate taxes and should be the agency to collect those taxes, but over the time of the Liberals and the Conservatives, we have seen this denigrated to such a great degree.

We see the Conservative budget as crafted to meet the needs of the oil patch, not working Canadians. There are a few crumbs for working Canadians and everyone appreciates those. However, it is only a sleight of hand to take attention away from the billions in tax giveaways to big corporations, particularly oil companies, making obscene profits on the backs of hard-working Canadians and on the backs of our grandchildren as well, who will not have the share of the non-renewable resources that we are giving up now.

In the natural resources committee meeting earlier this week, we had presentations from CERI, the Canadian Energy Research Institute, which indicated that by 2020, if the expansion of the oil sands has taken place as outlined and if the cost of oil is $40 U.S. a barrel, which is $62 today, oil companies will make approximately $1 trillion by 2020 from the oil sands, on an investment of $100 billion.

The government's share of this will be less than 15%. We will see the escape of enormous amounts of resources and dollars out of our country and out of the hands of Canadians who need them so much. We need a government and a budget that speaks to the future of our natural resources, and that is quite clearly the case.

Another study was done recently in my territory by an independent group on the Mackenzie gas project, a project that Imperial Oil has indicated is marginally economic. Its study shows, and this was verified by economists and was done by an economist at Pacific Analytics out of Victoria, B.C., that the after-tax rate of return on this project will exceed 25%, and the oil companies are calling this a marginal project in Canada.

The project will deal in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with rates of return of this magnitude, yet they will be subjected to the lowest royalties and corporate taxes. All of this comes down very favourably for them. What does it do for Canadians, for our children and our grandchildren as we move along and require dollars for infrastructure and other things? It does nothing; it is squandered. This is why it is so important that we understand how our tax system works and that we stand up for Canadians.

We did not see this in the budget here and that is a shame. It is a crying shame that we do not see a move to ensure that the resources of our country serve the people of our country.

[Petitions, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition to the Government of Canada for a new automotive trade policy that would cancel negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea and develop a new trade policy that would require Korea and other offshore markets to purchase equivalent volumes of finished vehicles and auto parts from North America.

This petition has 159 signatures from Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity for a number of years to sit on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board where we looked at projects and conducted public hearings on a variety of issues.

In the north, which is quite a colonial state still, the federal government took the recommendations we had and basically ignored them. Apart from that, it is really vital that the public interest in each province and in the territories in economics is understood by the population. The population has the ability, whether it is small business, aboriginal people, or whoever it is, to understand the kinds of decisions that we are making and how they impact on their lives. That is a fundamental aspect of the democratic system.

Interestingly enough, often when we do environmental assessments, we move into economics and find out some of the answers. Therefore, the public hearing process would have helped the government gain a backbone and it would have also helped Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Yes, some of us are. This $1 billion that is in the hands of the United States now, I am sure will be used for purposes that are not favourable to Canada. If this deal goes ahead, that is the reality of it, and that reality is an unfortunate reality.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question triggered in my mind one of the reasons why I worked so very hard to get into Parliament, which was the deal that was struck between multinational diamond companies and the Canadian government on the diamond resources in the north.

What a giveaway we had there. The Liberal Party, in its wisdom when it was in power, chose to give that industry carte blanche in the treatment of our resource there, and certainly as a northerner I railed against that for many years.

However, that is symptomatic of the larger problem. Canadians are wealthy in resources right now and we are willing to sell them off at the lowest price to maintain political promise.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA promise of secure access to the U.S. market was never anything but an illusion. Nothing but shreds remain of a guarantee of an end to arbitrary U.S. tariffs, yet the takeover of our industries continues apace, from retail to beef, from manufacturing to energy.

NAFTA prohibits the imposition of an export tax on energy or on basic petrochemicals that exceed those applicable to domestic consumption. That is article 605(b). When coupled with quantitative control prohibitions of GATT article XI, this ban on export taxation effectively and entirely removes government control of energy exports.

Not long ago we had a made in Canada price for energy, Canadian oil and gas companies were the primary people in the industry, and a 25 year reserve of gas was set aside for Canada's future needs. That is no longer the case.

The impact of the Alliance pipeline on our gas industry was huge. Yes, it brought immediate wealth to Alberta and British Columbia, but it also exported all the liquids that we need for our petrochemical industry in Edmonton, in the heartland of our oil and gas industry, and now we are short of those. We will see plant shutdowns soon. Just like the export of raw logs, when we export raw energy, as the Alliance pipeline does, down to factories in Chicago, we are exporting jobs south of the border. We are taking them out of the Canadian perspective.

No other country in the world in a time of peace has signed away so completely its energy resources, present and future. Canada, interestingly enough, is the only NAFTA country prevented by the energy exporting provisions in NAFTA. Four years ago the U.S. adopted a national energy policy that emphasized national energy security, self-sufficiency and even support for domestically owned firms. Canada, meanwhile, is required by NAFTA to continue exporting oil and gas to the U.S., even if it experiences shortages.

The interesting development was the liquefied natural gas terminals in Quebec where the company is talking about security of supply with two forms of energy, but when we look at the company's plan, the natural gas that is flowing to Quebec right now will be diverted to the United States once the LNG terminals are in place. Where is the security in that?

The Mexican energy sector under the agreement does not parallel that between Canada and the U.S. because Mexico protected its energy industry. Mexico's actions are given respect in the United States. To quote from the U.S. national energy task force report, “Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity, oil and gas capacity”.

Integrating our energy and our economy into that of the U.S. means it is subject to U.S. ownership, decisions, priorities and prices. That is exactly what the softwood lumber deal means to our forest industry. The pattern continues. It was started by the Liberals and is continued by the Conservatives. Let us not wait until our industries and agriculture become completely uncompetitive, until Canadians are left begging for their own energy at 40° below. We need to really look at this deal very carefully. This deal represents a further step down that slippery slope that leads to deep integration of our economies and the loss of Canadian sovereignty, jobs and a secure resource base.

As a northerner, I probably live further away from the U.S. border than most people in this chamber. I feel secure in some ways there, but I do not feel secure when I come into this House of Commons and see the people who are representing Canada making decisions for short term benefit and political gain, and forgetting the long term implications to this country and to our sovereignty, which our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought to first obtain and then continue to uphold.

John Diefenbaker would be turning over in his grave right now if he knew what these Conservatives were doing to our country. They are following the Liberal pattern. The Liberals were great at continentalism, always have been. Now all of a sudden we have them all together. I hope Canadians in the next election really realize that we have Tweedledee and Tweedledum when it comes to protecting Canadian sovereignty in this country.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the issue of softwood lumber and the agreement that is being pursued by the Conservative government that will leave our industry far short in the future.

It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Natural Resources speak today in the House and admit that the industry was now going to have to be restructured. Quite rightly, if this agreement is carried through, it will create fewer jobs in the industry and more exports of raw material to the United States.

The fact that this agreement has no tariff on raw logs will drive the destruction of our sawmill and related products industry across the country. This is especially so in British Columbia where the value of the logs is so high and the opportunity to export them is so strong.

Despite being right on this issue and supported by every tribunal ruling on softwood, we are going to lay down to the United States on this. This is not good. This sets a bad precedent. Once we give in on this issue, we can be sure that the United States will be back again on another issue. The U.S. does not recognize weakness, it recognizes strength. Here we are acting in a fashion that is weak, that is insipid and that does not nearly stand up the way we should.

It is so ironic that in this House the Conservative government has berated our leader for cutting and running in Afghanistan, yet at home we see the same Conservative government cutting and running on this issue. I find that to be logically inconsistent and much like the rest of the government's debate on this issue.

This deal declares open season on any Canadian industry that the U.S. wants to target with illegal tariffs. The U.S. knows that it will be rewarded. The Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals were in caving in to American interests. I remember when the Liberals came to power in the early 1990s they said that they were not going to go along with NAFTA. What did the Liberals do as soon as they were elected to power? They went along with it. They definitely went along with it. The Liberals went along with a lot of those types of arrangements which for instance are now driving our energy industry and which are harmful in the long term to our economy.

NAFTA has reinforced inequalities of power across North America and has entrenched an economic model of integration that has resulted in a growing gap between the rich and the poor in North America.

This Harper-Bush sellout of our lumber industry is just the beginning.

[Petitions, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition regarding autism spectrum disorder. The petitioners request that the Canada Health Act be amended to include specialized therapy for treatment of autism and for increased educational resources to train more persons to treat autism.

The petition has 56 signatures from my riding of Western Arctic, from the communities of Fort Smith and Yellowknife. I support this petition fully.