Dennis Bevington

[The Environment, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister might also be interested to know that we have problems on the other side of the Arctic. Denmark has issued drilling permits in Davis Strait, right up against our maritime border in the Arctic. Davis Strait is also known as “iceberg alley”. All we have protecting us is a non-binding agreement on oil pollution.

What is the government doing to ensure Denmark is taking all the steps necessary to protect the environment in the strait, or are we going to wait until oil is washing up on the shores of Nunavut?

[The Environment, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today the United States is facing an environmental disaster of epic proportions as the massive oil slick from the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform strikes land. These same oil companies want an exemption from having to drill relief wells for their operations in the Beaufort Sea.

With this clear evidence that the most stringent environmental protections must be applied to offshore drilling, will the government stand up to the oil companies, enforce drilling relief wells and come up with a real plan to deal with disasters in our Arctic waters?

[CONSTITUTION ACT, 2010 (SENATE TERM LIMITS), April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the only practical reason I can see for the NDP to support this particular motion is that perhaps when we are government in eight years we will want to see some changes in the Senate. Quite obviously, having a much more progressive legislative agenda than the House has ever seen, we would be having a lot of trouble with the people over in that house.

I will get back to the elected issue, which is the second phase of the Conservative plan. The arguments right now are regional based. We have a different system in this country than in the United States. If we had two houses elected here, we would have big trouble. We have strong provincial governments that represent themselves well and have very strong powers under our Constitution. They do not need the protection of another house here.

What the federal government needs is strength in order to provide national leadership. With an elected Senate, I am afraid that we would end up being stalemated on so many issues that are of national scope and yet regional concerns always play the biggest card. For that, I would never support an elected Senate.

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the nature of the Senate and how it affects the decisions that we are making here today, I think the examples that have been used are a bit inappropriate. The U.S. Senate, of course, is an elected body. Perhaps the model that we should look to by which to judge the bill is the House of Lords, where appointed gentry for hundreds of years have held those positions for a very long time.

I come from a party that does not believe in the institution of the Senate. It does not believe that it has usefulness left in Canada. Certainly, to try to compare this institution today to an elected body like the U.S. Senate where senators hold very important positions in the democratic process there, is completely wrong. There is no comparison between those two bodies in their function and, ultimately, even if this Senate was elected, in its purpose to Canadians.

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the spirited discussion he had on a bill that he does not like, but it will move forward to committee.

I have been here for four and a half years and I really cannot say that I have found that the Senate accomplishes anything. It is a body that should be exposed for its uselessness to the Canadian public.

In provinces right across the country where they had senates, it is quite clear to them. Probably they have better money managers than we do. They were closer to the people and they said, “Look, we cannot afford to have these things. These things are not working. It is not worthwhile to have a bunch of people sitting in these chambers doing nothing on the public dole”. So, they got rid of them. I agree completely.

The member mentioned something about international affairs. We send all these senators out on these parliamentary tours to all these countries. Do other countries do the same thing? I have not noticed that. When I visit with other parliamentarians I have not noticed any people there who were not elected.

What do we do in Canada? We ship out the appointed senators all over the world to show what? That we are still half-colonial in our nature? That we have not really discovered the true nature of democracy, which means that a person is elected as a representative of the country?

What does my colleague think about sending senators out on the road when they do not really represent the people of this country?

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what does my hon. colleague suppose the motive is in this bill? We need to be clear on the government's motive in bringing forward this bill. What is the point in establishing term limits for senators who are ostensibly there to provide sober and wise oversight on a bill?

What is the purpose that she sees in this bill that the Conservatives have brought forward today?

[Airport Security, April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the transport committee heard testimony from an Israeli security expert who said he was able to foil the nude body scanners although he was carrying enough explosives to take down a 747. Because of this, the Israelis have decided not to install these scanners at their airports. The transport committee has continued to hear evidence about Canada's aviation security.

With this revelation, will the minister hold off deploying more of these scanners until after the transport committee has made its report to the House?

[Northern Development, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General revealed that the main problem with the environmental regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories is the government's own failure to properly implement it.

The Auditor General detailed how the government has starved identified funding needs, not acted on past recommendations and dragged its feet when it comes to implementation.

However, the current government says the system's problems are all the fault of the process created by northerners to protect their lands and waters.

Will the minister admit that the highly publicized objective of regulatory reform is designed to open the north to uncontrolled exploitation and that it, not northerners, has created the problem?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to engage my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, in the subject of regionality.

I come from a riding where there is one representative for an entire region. In the 1970s the riding was split and, because of regionality, one riding was given to the eastern Arctic at the time under the same jurisdiction. Now that there are two separate territories, there are two separate seats. Under regionality four seats are given to Prince Edward Island. That is a very important point.

Does the minister not agree that we are in a confederation where every region has to have representation that is adequate for its requirements regardless of the population distribution? The representation of a region in a confederation is highly important.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 20th, 2010]

With respect to aviation security: (a) what are all terms of the agreement which Canada signed with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic and the United States in Mexico City on February 17, 2010; (b) what steps will be taken to ensure the personal information of Canadians shared with these countries is protected and not used for any other purpose; and (c) when will this agreement be presented to Parliament for review and debate?