Dennis Bevington

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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?

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—

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

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.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

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.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

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”.

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.

[The Environment, November 27th, 2012]

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?

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, November 26th, 2012]

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.