Dennis Bevington

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition entitled Canadian Grandmothers for Africa, a national advocacy network, undersigned by many Canadians across the country.

The residents of Canada petition the House of Commons to ensure that Canada sets a timetable to meet by 2015 its 40 year old promise to contribute 0.7% of our gross national product to development assistance, as well as to contribute its fair share to the global fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, that is 5% of the funding needed for the next five years, and make legislative changes necessary for Canada's Access to Medicine Regime to facilitate the immediate and sustainable flow of lower cost generic medicines to developing countries.

[Aviation Safety, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members of the transport committee heard shocking revelations about Transport Canada's failed approach to aviation safety. Members learned that inspectors spend their time pushing paper rather than making sure it is safe to fly.

Government members on the committee claimed that the witnesses were fear-mongering. If this was just fear-mongering, why did the government halt its plans for safety management systems for small airlines? It recognized it was not going to work.

Will the government commit to review aviation safety, fix the problems and restore public confidence?

[The Environment, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's inaction on climate change is not just being noticed at home, but Canada's very reputation is on the line. A number of prominent figures from Commonwealth developing nations are moving to get Canada suspended from the organization for its active attempts to block action on climate change. This action is usually taken against the worst human rights abusers, but they argue that Canada's actions will end up having the same impact.

Will the government stop fighting against climate change, or is it willing to sacrifice our Arctic with its cynical lack of effort on climate change?

[The Environment, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the national round table on the environment and the economy says northern communities will need lots of help to adapt to the effects of climate change. Storm surges are threatening Tuktoyaktuk. Permafrost is melting causing roads and infrastructure to fail. Wildlife, such as caribou, is being threatened by changes to its ecosystem. All of these things are threatening the economic and human development of the north.

Does the government have a plan to help the north deal with the rapidly spreading effects of the changing climate?

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into this debate. I think quite clearly the debate, as the hon. member for Mount Royal has said, is about the nature of ten percenters and the content within them.

In my riding I have had ten percenters from Conservative MPs in the last while as well that have accused me of voting in certain ways when I never had the opportunity to vote on those issues at all.

To my mind the pattern of this behaviour on the part of the Conservative Party and its members of Parliament is really fundamentally what is going on here.

This behaviour as we are starting to see is unacceptable and the information given through the auspices of the House of Commons must be accurate. That is the kind of ruling that I have heard today. That is the kind of ruling that the Speaker has made on other ten percenters.

I suppose we could continue to bring these up one by one as questions of privilege and occupy the time of the House in debate. However, that does not really have to take place if we can have the parties agree that these ten percenters must be used for legitimate purposes, for purposes that are not slanderous or that do not contain non-factual material.

Can my hon. colleague not see that there is an importance in coming out with a position from his party, as well as every other party, to ensure that this does not happen again?

[Petitions, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from numerous Canadians across the country which states that the undersigned citizens of Canada draw attention of the House of Commons to the following. It contains a series of statements dealing with the problems surrounding the safety management systems that have been put in place by Transport Canada.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to initiate a commission of inquiry headed by a superior court judge to conduct a judicial review into Canada's state of national aviation safety and government oversight of the aviation industry to be followed by further reviews at defined intervals.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition calling for a commission of inquiry into aviation safety. This petition has been signed by numerous petitioners from across the country and represents a real desire to see that our aviation system is held in the highest degree of safety in the future as it was in the past.

[November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I share those sentiments about the waters, but the U.S. has moved from taking a position on setting a moratorium overfishing, in other words taking control of the environmental issues within the disputed areas, to now taking a program, a planning for drilling, in other words taking over the jurisdiction for the economic use of that area.

This matter will eventually end up in a court, perhaps the World Court, for the dispute resolution. Canada will be in a weaker position because we have allowed the U.S. to move forward with jurisdictional action in a disputed area, which will lead us, perhaps, to a decision by the World Court that would not be in our favour.

I am asking the government what is it doing today to ensure that this—

[November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue a question that I asked the government a week ago Monday on the Beaufort Sea and the border dispute between Canada and the United States. This border dispute started in the 1970s when the U.S. decided that the historical boundary on the longitudinal line between Alaska and Yukon was not appropriate and the appropriate boundary was a line perpendicular to the coastline. That meant that the U.S. had projected a claim on some 21,000 square kilometres of Canadian territorial waters in the Beaufort Sea.

In August the U.S. imposed a moratorium on commercial fishing in the waters around Alaska including the portion of the Beaufort Sea claimed by Canada. Canada responded to this movement with a diplomatic note, but in the meantime, we see that the U.S. has now entered into a planning process for the development of oil and natural gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea to the boundary that it has established for Canada.

The Alaskan oil industry regulator cleared the way for a series of lease sales over the next decade along a vast swath of coastal waters in the Beaufort Sea. It supports annual area-wide lease sales planned from this year through 2018 across about two million acres of near-shore waters and islands stretching from Point Barrow east to what the U.S. has now decided is the correct Canadian border.

The U.S. federal government takes responsibility for outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing, and it is planning for more extensive leasing in waters farther off the coast.

The lifting in 2008 of a moratorium on drilling in the Beaufort Sea has allowed the U.S. to do this in its waters and in the waters that it now claims from Canada. Of course, my question is what the government's response to this provocation is.

In a speech yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about Canada's role as an energy superpower. He said, “[O]ur government does, and always will, stand up for our interests and ownership over the Arctic”. He said as well, “We will...respond appropriately when other nations push the envelope when it comes to Canada's Arctic”. But he returned again and again to the issue of sovereignty, assuring the audience that the government would act firmly against other nations which failed to respect the border. Canada is in control of its Arctic waters and takes its responsibilities very seriously.

My question for the government remains. What are we going to do about this provocation by the United States?

[Aviation Safety, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is walking away from the most vital role of any government: protecting the public. Already we are not in compliance with international standards for aviation safety oversight and enforcement. Now we have to add pilot fatigue to the list. Canada's approach does not take into account factors like irregular shift time, multiple time zones, or night work. The result: Canadian pilots are flying when they are too tired. Why is the government allowing companies to cut costs on aviation standards and not ensuring that Canadians are safe when they fly?