Dennis Bevington

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

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?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

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?

[Petitions, March 31st, 2014]

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.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 7th, 2014]

With regard to the study and treatment of eating disorders: (a) how many major eating disorder studies have been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) including treatment, prevention or epidemiology research; (b) how many CIHR peer review committees include members who have expertise in eating disorders; (c) are questions about eating disorders included in national databases; (d) what Health Canada eating disorder initiatives are in place; (e) what are the reasons for which Health Canada does not include low body mass index (BMI) as a separate category; (f) is the Public Health Agency of Canada tracking eating disorders in terms of prevalence, access to treatment and availability of services; (g) is Statistics Canada tracking eating disorders; (h) what are the rates of eating disorders among First Nations, on reserve and in the territories; (i) what barriers to care for Aboriginal Canadians have been identified; (j) have eating disorders been integrated into obesity prevention initiatives in Aboriginal communities; (k) are these initiatives gender and culturally sensitive; (l) in the case of obesity-related research or healthy weight initiatives conducted by the government, are there safeguards in place to ensure ‘no harm’; (m) has the government conducted any research studies examining the full spectrum of eating disorders, from those affecting people with low BMIs to those affecting people with high BMIs; (n) what research efforts by Canada are underway to address those refractory cases currently being treated in long term care mental health facilities; (o) what actions is the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) taking concerning eating disorders; (p) are eating disorders included in MHCC reports; (q) of the MHCC management (board, executive staff and directors) are there any persons with expertise in eating disorders; (r) has the MHCC developed guidelines for treatment and/or prevention of eating disorders and, if not, why not; (s) have Health Canada or other government agencies performed a review of funded eating disorder services and, if not, why not; (t) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked co-morbid disorders such as eating disorders coupled with psychiatric illnesses; and (u) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked eating disorders coupled with medical disorders?

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

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?

[Petitions, March 3rd, 2014]

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.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, February 28th, 2014]

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.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, February 28th, 2014]

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.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, February 28th, 2014]

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.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, February 28th, 2014]

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.