Dennis Bevington

[Arctic Sovereignty, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I expected, a number of hollow words. This summer the U.S. banned commercial fishing in the Beaufort Sea, including 21,000 square kilometres of Canadian waters. The government's response was to send a note.

Now the U.S. and Alaska are planning to drill for oil and gas in our waters.

Will the government finally stand up for Canadian Arctic sovereignty or, as it has with climate change policies, will it wait for the U.S. to make the decision for us?

[Arctic Sovereignty, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada's north know that the government's words on protecting Arctic sovereignty are hollow.

Photo ops and announcements with no follow through are not enough. No one is fooled by red herrings like the non-dispute of Hans Island or the theatrical protests over Russian bombers which never actually came close to us.

When will the government take real action to protect Canada's Arctic sovereignty?

[Canadian Olympic Teams, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today the Olympic torch is in the Northwest Territories, in Inuvik and Yellowknife. As one can imagine, northerners have a special love of winter sports. Today allows them to show that love and to show their attachment to Canada.

Despite its small population, the NWT has been well represented on the Canadian Olympic teams, most notably by Sharon and Shirley Firth of Inuvik. The Firths were members of Canada's national cross-country team for 17 years. Between them, they won 79 medals at national championships and competed in four Olympics.

The NWT also has aspiring Olympians like Brendan Green of Hay River, who just made the national biathlon team. Others are still trying for places on those teams.

As part of the Olympic celebrations, Dene and Inuvialuit athletes will be showcasing traditional games. As well, NWT Day is being celebrated on February 19.

I support and encourage all northerners who aspire to Olympic greatness, and I know the entire NWT does as well.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting the bill, but to my mind the bill is basically, as pointed out by the questions of other hon. colleagues, a bill that would not change much in the legal system. I would like to see the government put forward regulations that would reduce the volume of the fraudulent opportunities in the economic system, and we have not seen that.

With this bill the government is continuing to appear to be making it tougher on criminals, but not looking at the root cause of fraudulent behaviour in the marketplace where the regulations are not sufficient to ensure that people's entry into that market is protected.

Why is the government moving in this particular direction rather than taking the more useful direction in reducing the opportunities for fraud in our market system?

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, coming from the Northwest Territories, one of the big concerns that I have with identity theft is of course the inter-family aspect. Perhaps this was alluded to by the previous questioner, but there is a potential in the system for elder abuse. Very often in society, people within a family are taken advantage of in the short-term when their credit cards are taken and used where they should not be used. These types of things go on inside families.

How practically would this law protect people within that realm and yet not put it to a point where family relationships are disrespected? There is a fine point of law here that is not always black and white, but grey. Using his knowledge, I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

You mean the U.S. ambassador-designate.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the government actions over the past three and a half years and their results.

The government was very big on ethanol production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It invested billions of dollars of Canadians' money. There was a real boondoggle when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a nice subsidy for farmers, but it should not be called greenhouse gas reductions. That has been clearly outlined. The use of corn ethanol is simply not viable as a greenhouse gas reduction technique.

The next boondoggle of the government was its choice to take the path and direction of carbon capture and storage in greenhouse gas reductions. Once again, it is a nice subsidy for oil and gas. Perhaps it will be used for enhanced oil recovery, but it is not a solution in the short, medium or long term for proper greenhouse gas reductions.

We can look at the budget that came out in January and its home renovation tax credit. There was money available for all measure of things. It was great for the home renovation business, but it was not directed toward any reductions of greenhouse gases or any improvements in energy efficiency for homes. People may have used it for those reasons, but it was certainly not directed toward those purposes.

There was no consideration for green projects within the infrastructure program. There was no consideration for greenhouse gas reductions in the direction of the investment of billions of dollars in this year's budget.

Where is the hon. member's analysis of the work the government has done so far to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Canadian taxpayers' dollars were spent ostensibly for that purpose and very little has been accomplished.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, part of the direction we have to take is to change people's attitudes about energy use and move people in a positive direction toward energy efficiency, all the good things to which the hon. member and his government have alluded. However, why in the last budget were all those dollars addressed toward the stimulation of the economy but there were no criteria regarding promoting green energy?

The other day I saw a sign regarding hot tub sales indicating that those who bought a hot tub could get the home renovation tax credit. How does that type of behaviour match up with any organized campaign on the part of the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Canadian Northwest Passage, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying I support this motion. What is not to support? It is symbolism. Symbolism is important in this country. It is important to understand how symbolism can make a difference for Canadians and for others across the world. This is an easy thing for the government to do.

What would be a little more difficult, but, I feel, more appropriate would be Motion No. 110, which calls to amend the motto of Canada so reference is made to all three oceans.

If this Parliament were to take this type of step, it would clearly indicate that the symbolism we are putting forward is intrinsic to the essence of our Canadian state, and it would carry much more weight in everything that we do. That would not exclude the need for us to establish boundaries, but including a third sea in our motto would be a clear indication that Canada includes the Arctic.

Perhaps the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings would ask the Prime Minister to decide whether my motion is worth supporting. The Liberal leader has come out in favour of it. On May 12, I hand-delivered a letter to the Prime Minister's Office, suggesting, because of his interest in Arctic sovereignty, he might be willing to throw his support behind changing the motto. Unfortunately, I have not even had a letter back acknowledging receipt of that letter.

Symbolism is important. However, the people of the north want more than symbolism, because the people of the north, in occupying the north, create more sovereignty than anything else that we could do.

Recently, the Standing Committee on Finance held a pre-budget session in Yellowknife. Here are some of the things that northerners think should be done.

There should be devolution. The north does not control its resources. Northerners do not control their resources as do people in every other area of the country. Decisions about resources can be better made by the people of the north, who understand how to develop to the north, and whose interests should come first. Their interests will drive Canadian interests. Their interests in building roads and proper transportation systems and strong communities will trump the interests of anyone else doing that work. So, we need to see the government moving toward devolution of the resources in the Northwest Territories and of control over the land and resources.

Proper funding of government programs and services was brought up very strongly. The current territorial financing formula set three years ago did show an increase, but it did not tie the level of funding to the actual cost of delivering services across the north. Over the last number of years, we have seen a marked increase in the only energy form that is commonly used throughout the north, that is, diesel fuel, home heating oil. Those prices have gone through the roof, and every territorial government, whether it is in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, has to bear that cost. We need to see a better formula. We need to see a formula that really does take into account the cost of delivering services.

As we progress with resource development, as we find ways to bring more revenue to Canada, that will help the situation. However, without that, what are we in? The Northwest Territories, over the last number of years, has had the highest GDP per capita in the country for any jurisdiction. Yet what happened to the population last year in the Northwest Territories? It declined. Why did it decline? It declined because the cost of services in the Northwest Territories is so high, the cost of living is so high there, that people simply cannot afford to continue their lifestyle in the Northwest Territories, in the Yukon, and especially in Nunavut.

I am sure no members of the House are surprised that it costs more to live in Canada's north than anywhere else. If they are, I would suggest they take one of their special trips across the country and visit the north to understand the kinds of pressures that northerners are living with in their communities across the whole north. Then perhaps they will come up in the next budget with more than a 10% increase to the northern residents' tax deduction after 20 years of no increases.

Perhaps then they will understand the importance of supporting the people right across the north. Until that happens, we are not going to achieve the kind of sovereignty that we are looking for in the north.

It is important to move ahead with land claims and self-government in the north. I point to the Mulroney government which did many good things to promote land claims and self-government in the northern regions. I had hoped some small part of that attitude would exist in the current Conservative government when it came to power three years ago, but what have we seen?

As an example, I will refer to the Hay River reserve. The federal government last fall simply rejected the 14th draft of the comprehensive land claim proposal, after negotiating 13 other drafts. On the 14th, the government said, “No, that is the end of it”. How is that fair to northerners? Foot-dragging at the negotiating table is something the government seems to be very good at. We need to see progress in that area.

My last point is about the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea. The biggest problem we have with sovereignty is with the U.S. on the Alaska-Yukon border. The U.S. has decided unilaterally that it has possession of 21,000 square kilometres of offshore land within the 200 mile limit. Most of those territorial waters lie within the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories and within Canada.

In April of this year, the government sent a letter to the U.S. stating that it opposed the concept of the U.S. putting a moratorium on the entire Beaufort Sea, including the disputed area. On August 27, just after the Prime Minister was on a ship off Baffin Island promoting Arctic sovereignty, the U.S. unilaterally put in place that moratorium on Canadian waters. Has the government responded to that challenge?

Parliament passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act last year. We did it ostensibly to provide us with more control over offshore waters. What is the U.S. doing with this fishing moratorium, the fishing issues for the U.S. off Alaska, in Chugach Bay and the Bering Strait? The Americans' decision to move ahead with a moratorium on our territorial waters is a direct challenge to Canadian sovereignty, and the government has chosen to remain silent.

Yes, the U.S. is our trading partner and yes, it is our best friend, but we must stand up for ourselves regarding the Beaufort Sea or we will lose.

[Canadian Northwest Passage, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up the idea of a name change for a somewhat amorphous region of my riding, the Northwest Territories. It is good that he is in this vein.

The Northwest Territories is not recognized by the House as a riding name for my riding, yet Yukon and Nunavut have that distinction. I have been after getting the name changed to represent the people in the Northwest Territories for the past two years, but that member's party has been blocking unanimous consent to right this particular wrong that comes out of the time when the Northwest Territories was divided into Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. The name change was not put in place.

It is almost outrageous that the motion would not pass with the unanimous consent of the whole House of Commons for such an important region in our country. It would show proper respect.

Would my hon. colleague support my efforts to achieve unanimous consent in the House of Commons as soon as possible for my riding of Northwest Territories?