Dennis Bevington

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

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.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

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.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

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.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

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.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

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?

[March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and his party of shopkeeper economics, do not mind giving very large subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits. However, when it comes to airports which provide the service and have the opportunity of expanding business around every hub, the Conservatives are determined to stifle them.

When my hon. colleague talks about the difference in population, the statistics are that Toronto has fewer passengers per population. In other words, for the population of Toronto and surrounding area, fewer passengers are going through that airport than through comparable airports in the United States. Why is that? Because those airports are cheaper. Through the provision of acceptable charges in the United States, those airports can provide their service at a cheaper rate.

No matter what the party in the House of Commons, if members opposite cannot see the sense in that, then they are just simply not getting it.

[March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the House are well aware of how like a vampire the government, through its ever-increasing fees, is sucking the life out of Canada's aviation industry.

According to a report released last year by the National Airlines Council of Canada, these extra costs can comprise between 30% and 70% of total ticket prices. In response, Canadians who live near the U.S. border are heading south to fly out of airports like Buffalo, New York and Seattle, Washington.

In desperation, Vancouver International Airport, for example, has frozen its landing and terminal fees until 2015. Toronto's Pearson International Airport has cut its airport improvement fee from $8 a flight to $4.

Part of the problem is the excessive airport rents charged by the federal government. In 2007, the actual airport rent collected by the federal government at Canadian airports totalled $285 million. The elimination of these rents would result in a significant increase in economic activity. According to the Canadian Airports Council, this economic activity would result in passenger traffic growth of over 590,000 passengers annually. This would increase airfare and traveller expenditures by $304 million.

This increase in passenger traffic would create 2,700 direct person years of employment, which would mean $90 million in direct wages, resulting in an additional $140 million in direct GDP and would create $300 million in direct economic input. That sounds pretty good, does it not? This increased activity would mean an additional $50 million in tax revenues. That is one thing that we can do.

There is another. There is an air travellers security charge, which the government just increased. For domestic itineraries, the ATSC is $7.12 one-way to a maximum charge of $14.25. For transboundary itineraries, the ATSC is $8 one-way to a maximum charge of $16.

Unlike any other form of transportation, air passengers must pay for their own security in Canada. As the National Airlines Council told the transport committee, aviation security is a public good, an essential service in Canada and should not be solely the financial responsibility of Canadian air passengers.

Then there are numerous air and navigation service charges from NAV Canada. They just add up and add up. Annual charges for small aircraft, daily charges for propeller aircraft, en route charge, terminal service charge, en route facilities and services charge, it just goes on and on. We just bleed these airports to death.

We are still not done with the fees and taxes the government charges. There is a federal excise tax on jet fuel. There is the GST, which further increases the base fares for passengers. The GST is imposed on both domestic and transborder flights.

Added to this is the increased costs the government caused when it eliminated funding for providing police protection at airports. The government legislates police protection, but will not help cover the costs.

Though the government does not like science, the facts do not lie. Canadian airports are underperforming compared to their international counterparts.

A report to the National Airlines Council by Dr. Fred Lazar found:

Toronto has fewer passengers per population than all of its comparators with the exception of Barcelona and Philadelphia, and neither of these is the major hub for their respective hub airlines. Toronto lags significantly behind Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Miami, even though geographically it is better located to connect both Europe and Asia to North and South America.

Vancouver underperforms all other similar airports and neither of these two U.S. cities that are similar in--

[Infrastructure Funding, March 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government announced that it would support the building of a highway from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk, a project that I have personally supported for a number of years and one that is in environmental assessment at the request of northerners. It is a great project but where is the money?

Unfortunately, there is no money assigned to do this. Nowhere in the government's detailed spending estimates is there a budget line for this highway.

What do we find in the main estimates? We find a cut of 70% to funds for the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the north's natural resources, and a 58% cut to funding to promote the social, political and scientific development of the three territories.

Northerners remember how the Conservatives promised Iqaluit a port but never delivered. We remember the armed ice-breakers now shelved. We remember a food mail program that caused prices to climb. Hollow promises all.

Northerners will not be waiting for this new hollow promise to come true. If the Conservatives really want to help northerners build this road, then it should be in the main estimates.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I too am concerned about the lack of response on this particular issue in terms of splitting the bill and moving it forward in a decent fashion that would permit some serious reflection.

The government pushes crime bills forward willy-nilly without thinking about them and without careful reflection on the views of experts in the field. Are we offering this compromise so that some of the important work can get done and so we can carefully scrutinize at committee the work the government has proposed?

[March 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides a degree of difficulty for all of us. In the north and in remote and isolated communities where police services are not available on a prescribed basis or not available at any particular time, the use of this law may cause apprehension and confinement of individuals by other individuals over a specific or long period of time and that may lead to issues as well.

It seems that we are treading into some water that is quite deep. The type of crimes that may be dealt with under this law may lead to other infractions of a very difficult nature.

I wonder how my colleague would see this law being applied in areas where there are no police services available. The citizens who use this may find themselves having to hold on to a criminal for a great length of time. How would that work out?